h  PRINCETON,    N.    J. 

^  Pivrt  of  the 

ADDISON    ALRXA.NDER    I>IBlURr, 

which  was  presented  by 

Mkssrs.  R.  L,  and  a.  Stuart. 


o 

I 

I 


Booh',    N», 


sec 

Owen 
The 
jus 


10,699   

,  John,  1616-1683. 
doctrine  of 
tification  by  faith 


THE 


DOCTRINE 


OP 


JUSTIFICATION   BY   FAITH 


THE   IMPUTATION 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 


EXPLAINED,    CONFIRMED,   AND   VINDICATED. 


BY   JOHN    OWEN,   D.D. 


FIRST   AMERICAN    EDITION. 


f 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN   BOARD   OF    PUBLICATION. 

JAMES    RUSSELL,    PUBLISHING    AGENT. 

1841. 


Printed  by 

WILLIAM    3.   MARTIEN, 


CONTENTS. 

Advertisement  to  the  First  American  Edition,       ...  5 

Preface,  .-. 7 

General  Considerations  previously  necessary  to  the  Explana- 
tion of  the  Doctrine  of  Justification,    13 

CHAPTER  I.— Justifying  Faith,  the  causes,  object,  and  nature 
of  it  declared, 83 

CHAPTER  II.— The  Nature  of  Justifying  Faith,  -        -       107 

CHAPTER  III.— The  Use  of  Faith  in  Justification ;  its  especial 
object  further  cleared,        -         -         -         -         -         -         -       123 

CHAPTER  IV. — Of  Justification,  the  Notion,  and  Signification 
of  the  word  in  the  Scripture, -       141 

CHAPTER  V. — The  Distinction  of  a  first  and  second  Justifi- 
cation examined.  The  Continuation  of  Justification,  whereon 
it  depends, -         -157 

CHAPTER  VI. — Evangelical  Personal  Righteousness,  the'Nature 
and  Use  of  it.    Final  Judgment,  and  its  respect  to  Justification,    174 

•  CHAPTER  VII. — Imputation,  and  the  Nature  of  it;  with  the 
Imputation  of  the  Righteousness  of  Christ  in  particular,         -       1&5 

CHAPTER  VIII.— Imputation  of  the  Sins  of  the  Church  to  Christ. 
Grounds  of  it.  The  Nature  of  his  Suretyship.  Causes  of  the 
New  Covenant.  Christ  and  the  Church  one  Mystical  Person. 
Consequences  thereof, 200 


^ 


4  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IX.— The  Formal  Cause  of  Justification;  or,  the 
Righteousness  on  account  of  which  believers  are  justified  before 
God.    Objections  answered, 233 

CHAPTER  X. — Arguments  for  Justification  by  the  imputation  of 
the  Righteousness  of  Christ.  The  first  Argument  from  the  na- 
ture and  use  of  our  own  Personal  Righteousness,  -         -       253 

CHAPTER  XI.— The  Nature  of  the  Obedience  that  God  requires 
of  us.     The  Eternal  Obligation  of  the  Law  thereto,      -         -       272 

CHAPTER  XII.— The  Imputation  of  the  Obedience  of  Christ 
to  the  Law,  declared  and  vindicated,   -----       284 

CHAPTER  XIII.— The  Nature  of  Justification  proved  from  the 
difference  of  the  Covenants, 310 

CHAPTER  XIV.— The  Exclusion  of  all  sorts  of  Works  from  an 
interest  in  Justification.  What  intended  by  the  Law,  and  the 
works  of  it,  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul, 313 

CHAPTER  XV.— Faith  alone, 328 

CHAPTER  XVI.— The  Truth  pleaded,  further  confirmed  by 
Testimonies  of  Scripture,  Jer.  xxiii.  6,         -         -         -        -       332 

CHAPTER  XVII. — Testimonies  out  of  the  Evangelists,  consid- 
ered,       --- --       337 

CHAPTER  XVIII.— The  Nature  of  Justification  as  declared  in 
the  Epistles  of  Paul,  especially  that  to  the  Romans,  chap.  iii.       345 

CHAPTER  XIX. — Objections  against  the  Doctrine  of  Justifica- 
tion, by  the  Imputation  of  the  Righteousness  of  Christ.  Personal 
holiness  and  obedience  not  obstructed,  but  furthered  by  it,  418 

CHAPTER  XX. — The  Doctrine  of  the  Apostle  James,  concern- 
ing Faith  and  Works.    Its  agreement  with  that  of  Paul,         -       432 


ADVERTISE  MENT 

TO   THE    FIRST   AMERICAN   EDITION. 

In  this  edition  of  Dr.  Owen's  important  and  profound  work  on 
Justification,  the  punctuation,  by  which  the  meaning  was,  in 
many  instances,  obscured,  if  not  destroyed,  has  been  corrected 
throughout;  some  redundant  expressions  have  been  lopped 
off;  some  obsolete  words  have  been  changed  into  more  intelli- 
gible ones;  the  Latin  and  Greek  quotations  have  been  re- 
moved from  the  text  to  the  bottom  of  the  page;  and  those 
which  the  author  had  left  untranslated,  have  been  translated. 
In  most  instances,  the  Hebrew,  in  quotations  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, has  been  omitted,  as  not  required  by  those  who  can 
consult  the  original,  and  useless  to  those  who  cannot.  On  the 
whole,  it  is  believed  that  the  present  will  not  suffer  in  com- 
parison with  any  former  edition  of  this  valuable  work. 


PREFACE. 


I  SHALL  not  need  to  detain  the  reader  with  an  account  of  the 
nature  and  moment  of  that  doctrine  which  is  the  entire  subject 
of  the  ensuing  discourse.  For,  although  sundry  persons,  even 
among  ourselves,  have  various  apprehensions  concerning  it,  yet 
that  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  therein  is  of  the  highest  impor- 
tance to  the  souls  of  men,  is  on  all  hands  agreed  to.  Nor  indeed 
is  it  possible  that  any  man  who  knows  himself  to  be  a  sinner, 
and  therefore  obnoxious  thereon  to  the  judgment  of  God,  should 
not  desire  to  have  some  knowledge  of  it,  as  that  alone  whereby 
the  way  of  delivery  from  the  evil  state  and  condition  wherein 
he  finds  himself  is  revealed.  There  are,  I  confess,  multitudes 
in  the  world,  who  although  they  cannot  avoid  some  general 
convictions  of  sin,  as  also  of  the  consequences  of  it;  yet  do 
fortify  their  minds  against  a  practical  admission  of  such  con- 
clusions, as  in  a  just  consideration  of  things  do  necessarily  and 
unavoidably  ensue  thereon.  Such  persons  wilfully  deluding 
themselves  with  vain  hopes  and  imaginations,  do  never  once 
seriously  inquire  by  what  way  or  means  they  may  obtain  peace 
with  God  and  acceptance  before  him,  which,  in  comparison  of 
the  present  enjoryment  of  the  pleasures  of  sin,  they  value  not 
at  all.  And  it  is  in  vain  to  recommend  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation to  them,  who  neither  desire  nor  endeavour  to  be  justi- 
fied. But  where  any  persons  are  really  made  sensible  of  their 
apostasy  from  God,  of  the  evil  of  their  natures  and  lives,  with 
the  dreadful  consequences  that  attend  thereon  in  the  wrath  of 
God,  and  eternal  punishment  due  to  sin,  they  cannot  well  judge 
themselves  more  concerned  in  any  thing,  than  in  the  know- 
ledge of  that  divine  way  whereby  they  may  be  delivered  from 
this  condition.  And  the  minds  of  such  persons  stand  in  no 
need  of  arguments  to  satisfy  them  in  the  importance  of  this 
doctrine ;  their  own  concernment  in  it,  is  sufficient  to  that  pur- 


PREFACE, 


pose.  And  I  shall  assure  them,  that  in  the  handling  of  it  from 
first  to  last,  I  have  had  no  other  design,  but  only  to  inquire 
diligently  into  the  divine  revelation  of  that  way,  and  those 
means,  with  the  causes  of  them,  whereby  the  conscience  of  a 
distressed  sinner  may  attain  assured  peace  with  God,  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  lay  more  weight  on  the  steady  direc- 
tion of  one  soul  in  this  inquiry,  than  in  disappointing  the  objec- 
tions of  twenty  wrangling  or  fiery  disputers.  The  question 
therefore  to  this  purpose  being  stated,  as  the  reader  will  find  in 
the  beginning  of  our  discourse,  although  it  were  necessary  to 
spend  some  time  in  the  explication  of  the  doctrine  itself,  and 
the  terms  wherein  it  is  usually  taught,  yet  the  main  weight  of 
the  whole  lies  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  testimonies,, 
with  the  application  of  them  to  the  experience  of  them  who 
believe,  and  the  state  of  them  who  seek  after  salvation  by  Jesus 
Christ.  There  are  therefore  some  few  things  that  I  would  de- 
sire the  reader  to  take  notice  of,  that  he  may  receive  benefit 
by  the  ensuing  discourse;  at  least,  if  it  be  not  his  own  fault,  be 
freed  from  prejudices  against  it,  or  a  vain  opposition  to  it. 

1.  Although  there  are  at  present  various  contests  about  the 
doctrine  of  justification,  and  many  books  published  in  the  way 
of  controversy  about  it;  yet  this  discourse  was  written  with  no 
design  to  contend  with,  or  contradict  any  of  what  sort  or  opin- 
ion soever.  Some  few  passages  which  seem  of  that  tendency, 
are  indeed  occasionally  inserted.  But  they  are  such  as  every 
candid  reader  will  judge  to  have  been  necessary.  I  have 
ascribed  no  opinion  to  any  particular  person,  much  less  wrested 
the  words  of  any,  reflected  on  their  persons,  censured  their 
abilities,  taken  advantages  of  presumed  prejudices  against  them, 
represented  their  opinions  in  the  deformed  reflections  of  strain- 
ed consequences,  fancied  intended  notions  wl^h  their  words 
do  not  express,  nor,  candidly  interpreted,  give  *iy  countenance 
to,  or  endeavoured  the  vain  pleasure  of  seeming  success,  in  op- 
position to  them,  which  with  the  like  eff'ects  of  weakness  of 
mind  and  disorder  of  aff"ections,  are  the  animating  principles  of 
many  late  controversial  writings.  To  declare  and  vindicate 
the  truth  to  the  instruction  and  edification  of  such  as  love  it  in 
sincerity,  to  extricate  their  minds  from  those  difiiculties  in  this 
particular  instance,  which  some  endeavour  to  cast  on  all  gospel 
mysteries,  to  direct  the  consciences  of  them  that  inquire  after 
abiding  peace  with  God,  and  to  establish  the  minds  of  them 
that  do  believe,  are  the  things  I  have  aimed  at.  And  an  en- 
deavour to  this  end,  considering  all  circumstances,  that  station 


PREFACE.  9 

which  God  has  been  pleased  graciously  to  give  me  in  the 
church,  has  made  necessary  to  me. 

2.  I  have  written  nothing  but  what  I  believe  to  be  true,  and 
^  useful  to  the  promotion  of  gospel  obedience.     The  reader  may 

not  here  expect  an  extraction  of  other  men's  notions,  or  a  col- 
lection and  improvement  of  their  arguments,  either  by  artificial 
reasonings,  or  ornament  of  style  and  language,  but  a  naked 
inquiry  into  the  nature  of  the  things  treated  on,  as  revealed  in 
the  Scripture,  and  as  evidencing  themselves  in  their  power  and 
efficacy  on  the  minds  of  them  that  do  believe.  It  is  the  prac- 
tical direction  of  the  consciences  of  men  in  their  application  to 
God  by  Jesus  Christ,  for  deliverance  from  the  curse  due  to  the 
apostate  state,  and  peace  with  him,  with  the  influence  of  the 
way  thereof  upon  universal  gospel  obedience,  that  is  alone  to 
be  designed  in  the  handling  of  this  doctrine.  And  therefore  to 
him  that  would  treat  of  it  in  a  due  manner,  it  is  required  that 
he  weigh  every  thing  he  asserts  in  his  own  mind  and  expe- 
rience, and  not  dare  to  propose  that  to  others  which  he  does 
not  abide  by  himself,  in  the  most  intimate  recesses  of  his  mind, 
under  his  nearest  approaches  to  God,  in  his  surprisals  with 
dangers,  in  deep  afflictions,  in  his  preparations  for  death,  and 
most  humble  contemplations  of  the  infinite  distance  between 
God  and  him. 

Other  notions  and  disputations  about  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation not  seasoned  with  these  ingredients,  however  seasoned 
to  the  palate  of  some  by  skill  and  language,  are  insipid  and 
useless,  immediately  degenerating  into  an  unprofitable  strife  of 
words. 

3.  I  know  that  the  doctrine  here  pleaded  for,  is  charged  by 
many  with  an  unfriendly  aspect  towards  the  necessity  of  per- 
sonal holiness,  good  works,  and  all  gospel  obedience  in  general, 
yea  utterly  to  take  it  away.  So  it  was  at  the  first  clear  reve- 
lation of  it  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  as  he  frequently  declares.  But 
it  is  sufficiently  evinced  by  him  to  be  the  chief  principle  of,  and 
motive  to  all  that  obedience  which  is  accepted  with  God 
through  Jesus  Christ,  as  we  shall  manifest  afterwards.  How- 
ever it  is  acknowledged  that  the  objective  grace  of  the  gospel 
in  the  doctrine  of  it,  is  liable  to  abuse,  where  there  is  nothing 
of  the  subjective  grace  of  it  in  the  hearts  of  men;  and  the  ways 
of  its  influence  upon  the  life  of  God,  are  uncouth  to  the  reason- 
ings of  carnal  minds.  So  was  it  charged  by  the  Papists  at  the 
first  reformation,  and  continues  yet  so  to  be.  Yet  as  it  gave  the 
first  occasion  to  the  Reformation  itself,  so  was  it  that  whereby 


10  PREFACE. 

the  souls  of  men  being  set  at  liberty  from  their  bondage  to  in- 
numerable superstitious  fears  and  observances,  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  true  gospel  obedience,  and  directed  into  the  ways 
of  peace  with  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  were  made  fruitful  in 
real  holiness,  and  to  abound  in  all  those  blessed  effects  of  the 
life  of  God,  which  were  never  found  among  their  adversaries. 
The  same  charge  was  afterwards  renewed  by  the  Socinians, 
and  continues  still  to  be  managed  by  them.  But  I  suppose  wise 
and  impartial  men  will  not  lay  much  weight  on  their  accusa- 
tions, until  they  have  manifested  the  efficacy  of  their  contrary 
persuasion  by  better  effects  and  fruits  than  yet  they  have  done. 
What  sort  of  men  they  were  who  first  coined  that  system  of 
religion  which  they  adhere  to,  one  who  knew  them  well  enough, 
and  sufficiently  inclined  to  their  anti-trinitarian  opinions,  de- 
clares in  one  of  the  queries  that  he  proposed  to  Socinus  him- 
self and  his  followers.   If  this,  says  he,  be  the  truth  which  you 
contend  for,  whence  comes  it  to  pass  that  it  is  declared  only  by 
persons,  nulla  pietatis  conimendatione,  nullo  laudato  pri- 
oris  vitsR  exemplo  commendatos:  imo  ut  plerunique  videmus, 
per  vagabundos,  ei  contentionum   zeli  carnalis  j)hnos  ho- 
mines, alios  ex  castris,  aiilis,  ganeis  prolatam  esse.     (S'cru- 
puli  ah  excellenti  viro  propositi,  inter  oper.    Socin.)     The 
fiercest  charge  of  such  men  against  any  doctrines  they  oppose 
as  inconsistent  with  the  necessary  motives  to  godliness,  are  a 
recommendation  of  it  to  the  minds  of  considerative  men.   And 
there  cannot  be  a  more  effectual  engine  plied  for  the  ruin  of 
religion,  than  for  men  to  declaim  against  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication by  faith  alone,  and  other  truths  concerning  the  grace  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  those  which  overthrow  the  necessity 
of  moral  duties,  good  works,  and  gospel  obedience,  whilst  un- 
der the  conduct  of  the  opinions  which  they  embrace  in  oppo- 
sition to  them,  they  give  not  the  least  evidence  of  the  power  of 
truth,  or  grace  of  the  gospel  upon  their  own  hearts,  or  in  their 
lives.     Whereas  therefore  the  whole  gospel  is  the  truth  which 
is  after  godliness,  declaring  and  exhibiting  that  grace  of  God 
which  teaches  us  to  deny  all  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts, 
and  that  we  should  live  soberly  and  righteously  and  godly  in 
this  world;  we  being  fallen  into  those  times  wherein  under 
great  and  fierce  contests  about  notions,  opinions,  and  practices 
in  religion,  there  is  an  horrible  decay  in  true  gospel  purity  and 
holiness  of  life  amongst  the  generality  of  men,  I  shall  readily 
grant,  that  keeping  a  due  regard  to  the  only  standard  of  truth, 
a,  secondary  trial  of  doctrines  proposed  and  contended  for,  may 


PREFACE.  11 

and  ought  to  be  made  by  the  ways,  Uves,  walkings  and  con- 
versations of  them  by  whom  they  are  received  and  professed. 
And  ahhough  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  doctrine  pleaded  in 
the  ensuing  discourse  be  liable  to  be  abused,  yea  turned  into 
licentiousness  by  men  of  corrupt  minds  through  theprevalency 
of  vicious  habits  in  them  (as  is  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  grace 
of  God  by  Jesus  Christ)  and  although  the  v/ay  and  means  of 
its  efficacy  and  influence  upon  universal  obedience  to  God  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness,  be  not  discernible  without 
some  beam  of  spiritual  light,  nor  will  give  an  experience  of  their 
power  to  the  minds  of  men  utterly  destitute  of  a  principle  of 
spiritual  life;  yet  if  it  cannot  preserve  its  station  in  the  church 
by  this  rule,  of  its  useful  tendency  to  the  promotion  of  godli- 
ness, and  its  necessity  thereto,  in  all  them  by  whom  it  is  really 
believed  and  received  in  its  proper  light  and  power,  and  that 
in  the  experience  of  former  and  present  times,  I  shall  be  con- 
tent that  it  be  exploded. 

4.  Finding  that  not  a  few  have  esteemed  it  compliant  with 
their  interest,  to  pubhsh  exceptions  against  some  few  leaves., 
which  in  the  handling  of  a  subject  of  another  nature  I  oc- 
casionally wrote  many  years  ago  on  this  subject,  I  am  not 
without  apprehensions,  that  either  the  same  persons  or  others 
of  a  like  temper  and  principles  may  attempt  an  opposition  to 
what  is  here  expressly  tendered  thereon.  On  supposition  of 
such  an  attempt,  I  shall  in  one  word  let  the  authors  of  it  know, 
wherein  alone  I  shall  be  concerned.  For  if  they  shall  make 
it  their  business  to  cavil  at  expressions,  to  wrest  my  words, 
wiredraw  inferences  and  conclusions  from  them  not  expressly 
owned  by  me,  to  revile  my  person,  to  catch  at  advantages  in 
any  occasional  passages,  or  other  unessential  parts  of  the  dis- 
course, labouring  for  an  appearance  of  success  and  reputation  to 
themselves  thereby,  without  a  due  attendance  to  Christian  mode- 
ration, candour  and  ingenuousness,  I  shall  take  no  more  notice 
of  what  they  say  or  write,  than  I  would  do  of  the  greatest  im- 
pertinencies  that  can  be  reported  in  this  world.  The  same  I 
say  concerning  oppositions  of  the  like  nature  to  any  other  writ- 
ings of  mine;  a  work  which  as  I  hear,  some  are  at  present  en- 
gaged in.  I  have  somewhat  else  to  do  than  to  cast  away  any 
part  of  the  small  remainder  of  my  life  in  that  kind  of  contro- 
versial writings  which  good  men  bewail,  and  wise  men  deride. 
Whereas  therefore,  the  principal  design  of  this  discourse,  is  to 
state  the  doctrine  of  justification  from  the  Scripture,  and  to 
confirm  it  by  the  testimonies  thereof,  I  shall  not  esteem  it 


12  PREFACE. 

spoken  against,  unless  our  exposition  of  Scripture  testimonies, 
and  the  application  of  them  to  the  present  argument  be  dis- 
proved by  just  rules  of  interpretation,  and  another  sense  of 
them  be  evinced.  All  other  things  which  I  conceive  necessary 
to  be  spoken  to,  in  order  to  the  right  understanding  and  due 
improvement  of  the  truth  pleaded  for,  are  comprised  and  de- 
clared in  the  ensuing  general  discourses  to  that  purpose;  these 
few  things  I  thought  meet  to  mind  the  reader  of. 

J.  0. 


From  my  Study, 
May  the  30th,  1677. 


GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS 


PREVIOUSLY  NECESSARY  TO  THE  EXPLANATION 


DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 


That  we  may  treat  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  usefully  to 
its  proper  ends,  which  are  the  glory  of  God  in  Christ,  with  the 
peace  and  furtherance  of  the  obedience  of  believers,  some  things 
are  previously  to  be  considered,  which  we  must  have  respect 
to  in  the  whole  process  of  our  discourse.  And  among  others 
that  might  be  insisted  on  to  the  same  purpose,  these  that  ensue 
are  not  to  be  omitted. 

1.  The  first  inquiry  in  this  matter  in  a  way  of  duty,  is  after 
the  proper  relief  of  the  conscience  of  a  sinner,  pressed  and 
perplexed  with  a  sense  of  the  guilt  of  sin.     For  justification 
is  the  way  and  means  whereby  such  a  person  obtains  ac- 
ceptance before  God,  with  a  right  and  title  to  a  heavenly 
inheritan'ce.     And  nothing  is  pleadable  in  this  cause,  but  what 
a  man  would  speak  to  his  own  conscience  in  that  state,  or 
to  the  conscience  of  another,  when  he  is  anxious  under  that 
inquiry.     Wherefore,  the  person  under  consideration,  that  is, 
who  is  to  be  justified,  is  one  who  in  himself  is  asij3?;?,  Rom.  iv. 
5,    "Ungodly;"   and   thereon  vTtoSixo?  •fco  ©^w;   chap.' iii.  19, 
"guilty  before  God;"   that  is,  obnoxious,  subject,  liable  -rcj 
Stxaiw^uttT'ti'oDQfOD,  chap.  i.  32;  to  the  righteous  sentential  "judg- 
ment of  God,"  that  he  who  commifteth  sin,  who  is  any  way 
guilty  of  it,  is  worthy  of  death.     Hereupon   such  a  person 
finds  himself  Itto   xanae.a.v,  Gal.  iii.    10;    "  under  the  curse," 
and  "  the  wrath  of  God"  therein  "abiding  on  him,"  John  iii. 
18,  36.     In  this  condition  he  is  «rartoxoyi?T'oj;  without  plea; 

2 


14  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

"without  excuse,"  by  any  thing  in  and  from  himself,  for  his 
own  relief;  his  "mouth  is  stopped,"  Rom.  iii.  19.  For  he  is, 
in  the  judgment  of  God,  declared  in  the  Scripture  avyx%r,9sii  i^' 
afia^iiav;  Gal.  iii.  22,  every  way  "shut  up  under  sin"  and 
all  the  consequences  of  it.  Many  evils  in  this  condition  are 
men  subject  to,  which  may  be  reduced  to  those  two  of  our 
first  parents,  wherein  they  were  represented.  For  first,  they 
thought  foolishly  to  hide  themselves  from  God,  and  then  more 
foolishly,  would  have  charged  him  as  the  cause  of  their  sin. 
And  such  naturally  are  the  thoughts  of  men  under  their  con- 
victions. But,  whoever  is  the  subject  of  the  justification  in- 
quired after,  is  by  various  means  brought  into  his  apprehen- 
sions, who  cried,  "  SirsL^what  m];ist  I  do  to  be  saved?" 

2.  With  respect  to  this  state  and  condition  of  men,  or  men 
in  this  state  and  condition,  the  inquiry  is:  What  that  is,  upon 
the  account  whereof  God  pardons  all  their  sins,  receives  them 
into  his  favour,  declares  or  pronounces  them  righteous,  and 
acquitted  from  all  guilt,  removes  the  curse,  and  turns  away 
all  his  wrath  from  them,  giving  them  right  and  title  to  a 
blessed  immortahty,  or  life  eternal.  This  is  that  alone  wh.ere-- 
in  the  consciences  of  sinne)-s  in  this  estate  are  concerned.  Nor 
do  they  inquire  after  any  thing,  but  what  they  may  have  to 
oppose  to,  or  answer  the  justice  of  God  in  the  commands 
and  curse  of  the  law,  and  what  they  may  betake  themselves 
to,  for  the  obtaining  of  acceptance  with  him  to  life  and  sal- 
vation. 

That  the  Apostle  does  thus  and  no  otherwise  state  this  whole 
matter,  and  in  answer  to  this  inquiry,  declare  the  nature  of 
justification  and  all  the  causes  of  it,  in  the  third  and  fourth 
chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  elsewhere,  shall  be 
aft^wards  declared  and  proved.  And  we  shall  also  manifest 
that  the  Apostle  James,  in  the  second  chapter  of  his  Epistle, 
does  not  speak  to  this  inquiry,  nor  give  an  answer  to  it; 
but  it  is  of  justification  in  another  sense,  and  to  another  pur- 
pose whereof  he  treats.  And  whereas  we  cannot  either 
safely  or  usefully  treat  of  this  doctrine,  but  with  respect  to 
the  same  ends  for  which  it  is  declared,  and  whereunto  it  is  ap- 
plied in  the  Scripture;  we  should  not  by  any  pretences  be 
turned  aside  from  attending  to  this  case  and  its  resolution,  in 
all  our  discourses  on  this  subject.  For  it  is  the  direction,  satis- 
faction and  peace  of  the  consciences  of  men,  and  not  the  curi- 
osity of  notions  or  subtilty  of  disputations,  which  it  is  our  duty 
to  design.     And  therefore  I  shall,  as  much  as  possibly  I  may, 


THE    DOCTRINE   OP   JUSTIFICATION.  15 

avoid  all  those  philosophical  terms  and  distinctions,  wherewith 
this  evangelical  doctrine  has  been  perplexed,  rather  than 
illustrated.  For  more  weight  is  to  be  put  on  the  steady  gui- 
dance of  the  mind  and  conscience  of  one  believer,  really  exer- 
cised about  the  foundation  of  his  peace  and  acceptance  with 
God,  than  on  the  confutation  often  wrangling  disputers. 

3.  Now  the  inquiry  on  what  account  or  for  what  cause  and 
reason  a  man  maybe  so  acquitted  or  discharged  of  sin,  and  ac- 
cepted with  God  as  before  declared,  doth  necessarily  issue  in 
this:  Whether  it  be  any  thing  in  ourselves,  as  our  faith  and  re- 
pentance, the  renovation  of  our  natures,  inherent  habits  of 
^race,  and  actual  works  of  righteousness,  which  we  have  done, 
or  may  do;  or  whether  it  be  the  obedience,  righteousness,  sq.tis- 
faction,  and  merit  of  the  Son  of  GodTbur  mediator  and  surety 
of  the  covenant"  imputed  to  us.  One  of  these  it  must  be, 
namely,  something  that  is  our  own,  which,  whatever  may  be 
the  influence  of  the  grace  of  God  in  it,  or  causality  of  it,  be- 
cause wrought  in  and  by  us,  is  inherently  our  own  in  a  proper 
sense;  or  something,  which  being  not  our  own,  not  inherent  in 
us,  not  wrought  by  us,  is  yet  imputed  unto  us,  for  the  pardon 
of  our  sins,  and  the  acceptation  of  our  persons  as  righteous;  or 
the  making  of  us  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God.  Neither  are 
these  things:  capable  of  mixture  or  composition,  Rom.  xi.  6. 
Which  of  these  it  is  the  duty,  wisdom  and  safety  of  a  convinced 
sinner  to  rely  upon  and  trust  to  in  his  appearance  before  God, 
is  the  sum  of  our  present  inquiry. 

4.  The  way  whereby  sinners  do,  or  ought  to  betake  them- 
selves to  this  relief,  on  supposition  that  it  is  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  and  how  they  come  to  be  partakers  of,  or  inte- 
rested in  that  which  is  not  inherently  their  own,  to  as  good 
benefit  and  as  much  advantage,  as  if  it  were  their  own,  is  of  a 
distinct  consideration.  And  as  this  also  is  clearly  determined 
in  the  Scripture,  so  it  is  acknowledged  in  the  experience  of  all 
them  that  do  truly  believe.  Neither  are  we  in  this  matter 
much  to  regard  the  senses  or  arguings  of  men,  who  were  never 
thoroughly  convinced  of  sin,  nor  have  ever  in  their  own  per- 
sons "  fled  for  refuge  unto  the  hope  set  before  them." 

5.  These  things  I  say  are  always  to  be  attended  to,  in  our 
whole  disquisition  into  the  nature  of  evangelical  justification; 
for  without  a  constant  respect  to  them,  we  shall  quickly  wan- 
der into  curious  and  perplexed  questions,  wherein  the  con- 
sciences of  guilty  sinners  are  not  concerned;  and  which  there- 
fore really  belong  not  to  the  substance  or  truth  of  this  doc- 


] 


16  THE   DOCTRINE   OP  JUSTIFICATION. 

trine,  nor  are  to  be  mixed  therewith.  It  is  alone  the  relief 
of  those  who  are  in  themselves  vTtoSoxoi  ta  eia,  guilty  before, 

f  or  obnoxious  and  liable  to  the  judgment  of  God,  that  we  in- 
quire after.     That  this  is  not  any  thing  in  or  of  themselves,  nor 

J  can  so  be;  that  it  is  a  provision  without  them,  made  in  infinite 
wisdom  and  grace  by  the  mediation  of  Christ,  his  obedience 
and  death  therein,  is  secured  in  the  Scripture,  against  all  con- 
tradiction; audit  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  gospel, 
Matt.  xi.  28. 

6.  It  is  confessed,  that  many  things  for  the  declaration  of  the 
truth,  and  the  order  of  the  dispensation  of  God's  grace  herein, 
are  necessarily  to  be  insisted  on;  such  are  the  i4.ature  of  jjiatia 
fying  faijth,  the  place  and  use  of  it  in  justification,  tlie  causes 
of  the  new  covenant,  the  true  notion  of  the  mediation  aiict  sure- 
tiship  of  Christ,  and  the^hke,  which  shall  all  of  them  be  in- 
quired into.  But  beyond  what  tends  directly  to  the  guidance 
of  the  minds,  and  satisfaction  of  the  souls  of  men,  who  seek 
after  a  stable  and  abiding  foundation  of  acceptance  with  God, 
we  are  not  easily  to  be  drawn,  unless  we  are  free  to  lose  the 
benefit  and  comfort  of  this  most  important  evangelical  truth, 
in  needless  and  unprofitable  contentions.  And  amongst  many 
other  miscarriages  which  men  are  subject  to,  whilst  they  are 
conversant  about  these  things,  this,  in  an  especial  manner,  is  to 
be  avoided. 

7.  For  the  doctrine  of  justification  is  directive  of  Christian 
practice,  and  in  no  other  evangelical  truth  is  the  whole  of  our 
obedience  more  concerned;  for  the  foundation,  reasons,  and 
motives,  of  all  our  duty  towards  God,  are  contained  therein. 
Wherefore,  in  order  to  the  due  improvement  of  them,  ought 
it  to  be  taught,  and  not  otherwise.  That  which  alone  we  aim 
(or  ought  so  to  do')  Jo  learn  in  it  and  by  it,  is  how  we  may 
get  and  maintain  peace  with  God,  and  so  live  unto  him^  rs  to 
be  accepted  willPhim  in  what  we  do.  To  satisfy  the  nnnds 
and  consciences  of  men  in  these  things,  is  this  doctrine  to  be 
taught.  Wherefore,  to  carry  it  out  of  the  understandings  of 
ordinary  Christians,  by  speculative  notions  and  distinctions,  is 
disserviceable  to  the  faith  of  the  Church.  Yea,  the  mixing 
of  evangelical  revelations  with  philosophical  notions,  has  been, 
in  sundry  ages,  the  poison  of  religion.  Pretence  of  accu- 
racy and  artificial  skill  in  teaching,  is  that  which  gives  coun- 
tenance to  such  a  way  of  handling  sacred  things.  But  the 
spiritual  amplitude  of  Divine  truths  is  restrained  hereby,  whilst 
low,  mean  philosophical  senses  are  imposed  on  them.    And 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION.  17 

not  only  so,  but  endless  divisions  and  contentions  are  occa- 
sioned and  perpetuated.  Hence,  when  any  difference  in  reli- 
gion is,  in  the  pursuit  of  controversies  about  it,  brought  into 
the  field  of  metaphysical  respects  and  philosophical  terms, 
whereof  there  is  rtoxvi  vofx.oi  tv^a  xat  tj^^a,  suflicient  provision  for 
the  supply  of  the  combatants  on  both  sides,  the  truth  for  the 
most  part,  as  to  any  concernment  of  the  souls  of  men  therein, 
is  utterly  lost,  and  buried  in  the  rubbish  of  senseless  and  un- 
profitable words.  And  thus,  in  particular,  those  who  seem  to 
be  well  enough  agreed  in  the  whole  doctrine  of  justification, 
so  far  as  the  Scripture  goes  before  them,  and  the  experience 
of  believers  keeps  them  company,  when  once  ihey  engage  in 
their  philosophical  definitions  and  distinctions,  are  at  such  an 
irreconcilable  variance  among  themselves,  as  if  they  were 
agreed  on  no  one  thing  that  doth  concern  it.  For  as  men  have 
various  apprehensions  in  coining  such  definitions  as  may  be 
defensible  against  objections,  which  most  men  aim  at  therein; 
so,  no  proposition  can  be  so  plain,  (at  least  in  materia  proha- 
bili,)  but  that  a  man  ordinarily  versed  in  paedagogical  terms 
and  metaphysical  notions,  may  multiply  distinctions  on  every 
word  of  it. 

8.  Hence  there  has  been  a  pretence  and  appearance  of 
twenty  several  opinions  among  Protestants,  about  justification; 
as  Bellarmine  and  Vasquez  and  others  of  the  Papists  charge 
it  against  ihem,  out  of  Osiander,  when  the  faith  of  them  all 
was  one  and  the  same,  Bellar.  lib.  5.  cap.  1.  Vasq.  in  1.  2. 
Quaest.  113.  disp.  202,  whereof  we  shall  speak  elsewhere. 
When  men  are  once  advanced  into  that  field  of  disputation, 
which  is  all  overgrown  with  thorns  of  subtilties,  perplexed  no- 
tions, and  futile  terms  of  art,  they  consider  principally  how 
they  may  entangle  others  in  it;  scarce  at  all,  how  they  may  get 
out  of  it  themselves,  ^nd  in  this  posture  they  oftentimes 
utterly  forget  the  business  which  thev  nrp  nhnnt.  especially  in 
fjTis  matter  of  justification;  namely,  how  a  guilty  sinner  may 
come*  to  obtain  favour  and  acceptance  with  God.  And  no t 
only  so,  but  I  doubt  they  oftentimes  dispute  themselves  beyond 
what  they  can  well  abide  by,  when  they  return  home  to  a 
sedate  meditation  of  the  state  of  things  between  God  and  their 
own  souls.  And  I  cannot  much  value  their  notions  and  senti- 
ments of  this  matter,  who  object  and  answer  themselves  out  of 
a  sense  of  their  own  appearance  before  God,  much  less  of  theirs, 
who  evidence  an  open  inconformity  to  the  grace  and  truth  of 
this  doctrine,  in  their  hearts  and  lives. 


18  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

9.  Wherefore,  we  do  but  trouble  the  faith  of  Christians,  and 
the  peace  of  the  true  Church  of  God,  whilst  we  dispute  about 
expressions,  terms  and  notions,  when  the  substance  of  the  doc- 
trine intended,  may  be  declared  and  believed,  without  the 
knowledge,  understanding,  or  use  of  any  of  them.  Such  are 
all  those  in  whose  subtle  management,  the  captious  art  of 
wrangling  does  principally  consist.  A  diligent  attendance  to 
the  revelation,  made  hereof  in  the  Scripture,  and  an  ex- 
amination of  our  own  experience  thereby,  is  the  sum  of  what 
is  required  of  us  for  the.  right  understanding  of  the  truth  herein. 
And  every  true  believer  whois  taught  of  God,  knows  how  to  put 
his  whole  trust  in  Christ  alone,  and  the  grace  of  God  by  him, 
for  mercy,  righteousness  and  glory,  and  not  at  all  concern  him- 
self with  those  loads  of  thorns  and  briars,  which,  under  the 
names  of  definitions,  distinctions,  accurate  notions,  in  a  number 
of  exotic,  pasdagogical  and  philosopical  terms,  some  pretend  to 
accommodate  them  withal, 

10.  The  Holy  Ghost  in  expressing  the  most  eminent  acts  in 
our  justification,  especially  as  to  our  believing,  or  the  acting 
of  that  faith  whereby  we  are  justified,  is  pleased  to  make  use 
of  many  metaphorical  expressions.  For  any  to  use  them  now, 
in  the  same  way,  and  to  the  same  purpose,  is  esteemed  rude, 
undisciplinary,  and  even  ridiculous;  but  on  what  grounds?  He 
that  shall  deny,  that  there  is  more  spiritual  sense  and  experience 
conveyed  by  them  into  the  hearts  and  minds  of  believers, 
(which  is  the  life  and  soul  of  teaching  things  practical,)  than 
in  the  most  accurate  philosophical  expressions,  is  himself  really 
ignorant  of  the  whole  truth  in  this  matter.  The  propriety  of 
such  expressions  belongs,  and  is  confined  to  natural  science; 
but  spiritual  truths  are  to  be  taught,  not  "in  the  words  which 
man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth, 
comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual."  God  is  wiser  than 
man,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  knows  better  what  are  the  most  ex- 
pedient ways  for  the  illumination  of  our  minds,  with  that 
knowledge  of  evangelical  truths,  which  it  is  our  duty  to* have 
and  attain,  than  the  wisest  of  us  all.  And  other  knowledge  of, 
or  skill  in  these  things,  than  what  is  required  of  us  in  a  way  of 
duty, is  not  to  be  valued. 

It  is  therefore  to  no  purpose  to  handle  the  mysteries  of  the 
Gospel,  as  if  Holcot  and  Bricot,  Thomas  and  Gabriel,  with 
all  the  Sententiarists,  Summists,  and  Quodlibetarians  of  the  old 
Roman  peripatetical  school,  were  to  be  raked  out  of  their 
graves  to  be  our  guides.    Especially  will  they  be  of  no  use  to 


THE    DOCTRINE    OP   JUSTIFICATION.  19 

US,  in  this  doctrine  of  justification.  For  wliereas  they  pertina- 
ciously adhered  unto  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle,  who  knew 
nothing  of  any  righteousness,  hut  what  is  an  habit  inherent  in 
ourselves,  and  the  acts  of  it,  they  wrested  the  whole  doctrine 
of  justification  unto  a  compliance  therewithal,* 

Secondly — A  due  consideration  of  him  with  whom  in  this 
matter  we  have  to  do,  and  that  immediately,  is  necessary  to 
a  right  stating  of  our  thoughts  about  it.  The  Scripture  ex- 
presses it  emphatically,  that,  "^  is  God  tlmt.  jn.stifip.th.^'  Rom. 
viii.  33.  And  he  assumes  it  to  himself  as  his  prerogative,  to 
do  what  belongs  thereunto.  "  I,  even  I  am  he  that  blotteth  out 
thy  transgressions  for  my  own  sake,  and  will  not  remember  thy 
sins,"  Isa.  xliii.  25.  And  it  is  hard,  in  my  apprehension,  to 
suggest  to  him  any  other  reason,  or  consideration  of  the  par- 
don of  our  sins;  seeing  he  has  taken  it  on  him  to  do  it  for 
his  own  sake,  that  is,  "for  the  Lord's  sake,"  Dan.  is;*'  17.,  in 
whom  "  all  the  seed  of  Israel  are  justified,"  Isa.  xlv.  23.  In  his 
sight,  before  his  tribunal,  it  is,  that  men  are  justified  or  con- 
demned, Psal.  cxliii.  2.  "Enter  not  into  judgmerit-'with  thy 
servant;  for  in  thy  sight  shall  no  man  living  be'' justified." 
And  the  whole  work  of  justification,  with  all  that  belongs 
thereto,  is  represented  after  the  manner  of  a  juridical  pro- 
ceeding before  God's  tribunal,  as  we  shall  see  afterwards. 
Therefore,  saith  the  Apostle,  "by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall 
no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight,"  Rom.  iii.  20.  However  any 
may  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  men  or  angels,  by  their  own 
obedience,  or  deeds  of  the  law,  yet  in  his  sight,  none  can  be  so. 

Necessary  it  is  to  any  man  who  is  to  come  to  a  trial,  in  the 
sentence  whereof  he  is  greatly  concerned,  duly  to  consider  the 
judge  before  whom  he  is  to  appear,  and  by  whom  his  cause  is 
finally  to  be  determined.  And  if  we  manage  our  disputes  about 
justification,  without  a  contitmal. regard  to  him,  by  whom  we 
must  be  cast  or  acquitted,  we  shall  not  rightly  apprehend 
what  our  plea  ought  to  be.  Wherefore,  the  greatness,  the  ma- 
jesty, the  holiness  and  sovereign  authority  of  God,  are  always 
to  be  present  with  us,  in  a  due  sense  of  them,  when  we  in- 
quire how  we  may  be  justified  before  him.  Yet,  it  is  hard  to 
"discern  how  the  minds  of  some  men  are  influenced  by  the  con- 

*  So  Plghius  himself  complained  of  them,  Controv.  2,  Dissimulare  lion  pos- 
sumus,  lianc  vcl  primam  doctrinae  Christianae  partem  (de  justificatione)  obscura- 
tam  magis  qiiain  illustratam  a  scliolastici?,  spinosis  picrisquc  quccstionibus,  et  de- 
finitionibus,  secundum  quas  nonuulli  magno  supercilio  primam  in  omnibus  autori- 
tatem  arrogantcs,  &c. 


20  THE    DOCTRINE    OP   JUSTIFICATION. 

sideration  of  these  things,  in  their  fierce  contests  for  the  inte- 
rest of  their  own  works  in  their  justification.  But  the  Scrip- 
ture represents  to  us,  what  thonglits  of  him,  and  of  them- 
selves, not  only  sinners,  but  saints  also  have  had,  and  cannot 
but  have,  upon  near  discoveries  and  effectual  conceptions  of 
God  and  his  greatness.  Thoughts  hereof  ensuing  on  a  sense 
of  the  guilt  of  sin,  filled  our  first  parents  with  fear  and  shame, 
and  put  them  on  that  foolish  attempt  of  hiding  themselves  from 
him.  Nor  is  the  wisdom  of  th^r  posterity  one  jot  better  under 
their  convictions,  without  a  discovery  of  the  promise.  That 
alone  makes  sinners  wise,  which  tenders  them  relief.  At  pre- 
sent, the  generality  of  men  are  secure,  and  do  not  much  ques- 
tion but  that  they  shall  come  ofi"  well  enough  one  way  or  other, 
in  the  trial  they  are  to  undergo.  And  as  such  persons  are  alto- 
gether indifferent  what  doctrine  concerning  justification  is 
taught  and  received,  so  for  the  most  part,  for  themselves,  they 
incline  to  that  declaration  of  it,  which  best  suits  their  own 
reason,  as  influenced  with  self-conceit,  and  corrupt  affections. 
The  sum  hereof  is,  that  what  they  cannot  do  themselves,  what 
is  wanting  that  they  may  be  saved,  be  it  more  or  less,  shall  one 
way  or  other  be  made  up  by  Christ,  either  the  use  or  the  abuse 
of  which  persuasion  is  the  greatest  fountain  of  sin  in  the  world, 
next  to  the  depravity  of  our  nature.  And  whatever  be,  or 
may  be  pretended  to  the  contrary,  persons  not  convinced  of 
sin,  not  humbled  for  it,  are,  in  all  their  ratiocinations  about 
spiritual  things,  under  the  conduct  of  principles  so  vitiated  and 
corrupted.  See  Matt,  xviii.  3,  4.  But  when  God  is  pleased  by 
any  means  to  manifest  his  glory  to  sinners,  all  their  former 
trusts  and  contrivances  issue  in  dreadful  horror  and  distress. 
An  account  of  their  temper  is  given  us,  Isa.  xxxiii.  14.  "The 
sinners  in  Sion  are  afraid,  fearfulness  hath  surprised  the  hy- 
pocrites: who  among  us  shall  dwell  with  the  devouring  fire? 
who  among  us  shall  dwell  with  everlasting  burnings?"  Nor 
is  it  thus  only  with  some  peculiar  sort  of  sinners.  The  same 
will  be  the  thoughts  of  all  guilty  persons,  at  some  time  or 
other.  For  those  who  through  sensuality,  security,  or  super- 
stition, do  hide  themselves  from  the  vexation  of  them  in  this 
world,  will  not  fail  to  meet  with  them  when  their  terror  shall 
be  increased,  and  become  remediless.  "Our  God  is  a  con- 
suming fire,"  and  men  will  one  day  find,. how  vain  it  is  to  set 
their  briars  and  thorns  against  him  in  battle  array.  And  we 
may  see  what  extravagant  contrivances  convinced  sinners  will 
put  themselves  upon,  under  any  real  view  of  the  majesty  and 


THE   DOCTRINE   OP    JUSTIFICATION.  21 

holiness  of  God:  Micah,  vi.  6,  7.  "  Wherewith  (saith  one  of 
them)  shall  I  come  before  the  Lord,  and  bow  myself  before  the 
high  God?  shall  I  come  before  him  with  burnt  offerings,  with 
calves  of  a  year  old?  will  the  Lord  be  pleased  with  thousands 
of  rams,  or  with  ten  thousands  of  rivers  of  oil?  shall  I  give  my 
first  born  for  my  transgression,  the  fruit  of  my  body  for  the  sin 
of  my  soul?"  Neither  shall  I  ever  think  them  meet  to  be  con- 
tended withal  about  the  doctrine  of  justification,  who  take  no 
notice  of  these  things,  but  rather  despise  them. 

This  is  the  proper  effect  of  the  conviction  of  sin,  strengthened 
and  sharpened  with  the  consideration  of  the  terror  of  the 
Lord,  who  is  to  judge  concerning  it.  And  this  is  that,  which 
in  the  Papacy  meeting  with  an  ignorance  of  the  righteousness 
of  God,  has  produced  innumerable  superstitious  inventions,  for 
the  appeasing  of  the  consciences  of  men,  who  by  any  means 
fall  under  the  disquietments  of  such  convictions.  For  they 
quickly  see  that  nothing  of  the  obedience  which  God  requires 
of  them,  as  it  is  performed  by  them,  will  justify  them  before 
this  high  and  holy  God.  Wherefore  they  seek  for  shelter  in 
contrivances  about  things  that  he  has  not  commanded,  to  try 
if  they  can  put  a  cheaf  upon  their  consciences,  and  find  relief 
in  diversions. 

Nor  is  it  thus  only  with  profligate  sinners  upon  their  con- 
victions, but  the  best  of  men,  when  they  have  had  near  and 
efficacious  representations  of  the  greatness,  holiness,  and  glory 
of  God,  have  been  cast  into  the  deepest  self  abasement,  and 
most  serious  renunciations  of  all  trust  or  confidence  in  them- 
selves. So  the  prophet  Isaiah,  upon  his  vision  of  the  glory  of 
the  Holy.  One,  cried  out,  "Woe  is  me,  I  am  undone,  because  I 
am  a  man  of  unclean  lips;"  chap.  vi.  5,  nor  was  he  relieved  but 
by  an  evidence  of  the  free  pardon  of  sin,  ver.  7.  So  holy 
Job,  in  all  his  contests  with  his  friends,  who  charged  him  with 
hypocrisy,  and.  his  being  a  sinner,  guilty  in  a  peculiar  manner 
above  other  men,  with  assured  confidence  and  perseverance 
therein,  justified  his  sincerity,  his  faith' and  trust  in  God, 
against  their  whole  charge  and  every  parcel  of  it.  And  this 
he  does  with  such  a  full  satisfaction  of  his  own  integrity,  as 
that  not  only  he  insists  at  large  on  his  vindication,  but  fre- 
quently appeals  to  God  himself,  as  to  the  truth  of  his  plea.  For 
he  directly  pursues  that  counsel  which  the  apostle  James 
so  long  after  gives  to  all  believers;  nor  is  the  doctrine  of  that 
apostle  more  eminently  exemplified  in  any  one  instance  through- 
out the  whole  Scripture,  than  in  him.     For  he  shows  his  faith 


22  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

by  his  works,  and  pleads  his  justification  thereby.  As  Job 
justified  himseh',  and  was  justified  by  his  works,  so  we  allow 
it  the  duty  of  every  believer  to  be.  His  plea  for  justifica- 
tion by  works,  in  the  sense  wherein  it  is  so,  was  the  most 
noble  that  ever  was  in  the  world,  nor  was  ever  any  contro- 
versy managed  upon  a  greater  occasion. 

At  length  this  Job  is  called  into  the  immediate  presence  of 
God,  to  plead  his  own  cause,  not  now  as  stated  between  him 
and  his  friends,  whether  he  were  an  hypocrite  or  no,  or  whether 
his  faith  or  trust  in  God  was  sincere:  but  as  it  was  stated 
between  God  and  him,  wherein  he  seemed  to  have  made  some 
undue  assumptions  on  his  own  behalf.  The  question  was  now 
reduced  to  this:  on  what  grounds  he  might  or  could  be  jus- 
tified in  the  sight  of  God?  To  prepare  his  mind  to  a  right 
judgment  in  this  case,  God  manifests  his  glory  to  him,  and  in- 
structs him  in  the  greatness  of  his  majesty  and  power.  And 
this  he  does  by  a  multiplication  of  instances,  because  under  our 
temptations,  we  are  very  slow  in  admitting  right  conceptions 
of  God.  Here  the  holy  man  quickly  acknowledged,  that  the 
state  of  the  case  was  utterly  altered.  AH  his  former  pleas  of 
faith,  hope,  and  trust  in  God,  of  sincerity  in  obedience,  which 
with  so  much  earnestness  he  before  insisted  on,  are  now  quite 
laid  aside.  He  saw  well  enough  that  they  were  not  pleadable 
at  the  tribunal  before  which  he  now  appeared,  so  that  God 
should  enter  into  judgment  with  him  thereon,  with  respect  to 
his  justification.  Wherefore,  in  the  deepest  self-abasement 
and  abhorrence,  he  betakes  himself  unto  sovereign  grace  and 
mercy.  For  then  "Job  answered  the  Lord  and  said,  Behold 
I  am  vile,  what  shall  I  answer  thee?  I  will  lay  mine  hand 
upon  my  mouth:  once  have  I  spoken,  but  I  will  not  answer, 
yea,  twice,  but  I  will  proceed  no  further,"  Job  xl.  3,  4,  5,  And 
again, "  Hear,  I  beseech  thee,  and  I  will  speak,  I  will  demand 
of  thee,  and  declare  thou  unto  me:  I  have  heard  of  thee  by  the 
hearing  of  the  ear,  but  now  mine  eye  seeth  thee:  wherefore  I_ 
abhor  myself,  aijd  repent  in  dust  and  ashes,"  chap.  xlii.  4,  5,  6. 
Let  any  men  place  themselves  in  the  condition  wherein  now 
Job  was,  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God;  let  them  attend 
to  what  he  really  speaks  to  them  in  his  word,  namely  what 
they  will  answer  to  the  charge  that  he  has  against  them, 
and  what  will  be  their  best  plea  before  his  tribunal,  that  they 
may  be  justified.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  man  living  has 
more  encouraging  grounds  to  plead  for  an  interest  in  his 
own  faith  and  obedience,  in  his  justification  before  God,  than 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  JUSTIFICATION.  23 

Job  had;  although  I  suppose  he  had  not  so  much  skill  to  man- 
age a  plea  to  that  purpose  with  scholastic  notions  and  distinc- 
tions, as  the  Jesuits  have.  But,  however  we  may  be  har- 
nessed with  subtile  arguments  and  solutions,  I  fear  it  will  not 
be  safe  for  ns  to  adventure  further  upon  God,  than  he  dared 
to  do. 

There  was  of  old,  a  direction  for  the  visitation  of  the  sick, 
composed,  as  they  say,  by  Anselm,  and  published  by  Casparus 
Vlenbergius,  which  expresses  a  better  sense  of  these  things, 
than  some  seem  to  be  convinced  of.*  "Dost  thou  believe  that 
thou  canst  not  be  saved,  but  by  the  death  of  Christ?  The  sick 
man  answereth,  yes;  then  let  it  be  said  unto  him.  Go  to,  then, 
and  whilst  thy  soul  abideth  in  thee,  put  all  thy  confidence  in 
this  death  alone,  place  thy  trust  in  no  other  thing,  commit  thy- 
self wholly  to  this  death,  cover  thyself  wholly  Vv?ith  this  alone, 
cast  thyself  wholly  on  this  death,  wrap  thyself  wholly  in  this 
death.  And  if  God  would  judge  thee,  say.  Lord,  I  place  the 
death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  between  me  and  thy  judgment; 
and  otherwise  I  will  not  contend,  or  enter  into  judgment  with 
thee.  And  if  he  shall  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  art  a  sinner,  say, 
I  place  the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  between  me  and 
my  sins.  If  he  shall  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  hast  deserved 
damnation,  say,  Lord,  I  put  the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
between  thee  and  all  my  sins;  and  I  offer  his  merits  for  my 
own,  which  1  should  have,  and  have  not.  If  he  say  that  he  is 
angry  with  thee,  say.  Lord,  I  place  the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  between  me  and  thy  anger."  Those  who  gave  these 
directions,  seem  to  have  been  sensible  of  what  it  is  to  appear 
before  the  tribunal  of  God;  and  how  unsafe  it  will  be  for  us 
there  to  insist  on  any  thing  in  ourselves.  Hence  are  the  words 
of  the  same  Anselm  in  his  meditations.t    "  My  conscience  hath 

•  *  Credisne  to  non  posse  salvari  nisi  per  mortem  Christi  ?  Rcspondct  infirmus, 
Etiam ;  turn  dicit  illi ;  Age  ergo  dum  superesl  in  te  aniina,  in  hac  sola  mortc  fidu- 
ciam  tuam  constitue  ;  in  nulla  alia  re  fiduciam  habc,  huic  morli  tc  totum  com- 
niittc,  hac  sola  te  totum  contegc,  totum  iminisce  te  in  iiac  moitc,  in  hac  morte 
totum  te  involve.  Et  si  Dominus  te  volucrit  judicare,  Die,  Domino,  mortem  Do- 
mini nostri  Jesu  Christi  objicio  inter  me  et  tuum  judicium  ;  alitor  tecum  non  con- 
tendo.  Et  si  tibi  dixerit  quia  pcccator  es,  die,  mortem  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi 
pono  inter  mc  et  peccata.  mea.  Si  dixcrit  tibi  quod  meruisti  damnalionem ;  die, 
Domine,  mortem  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  obtendo  inter  to  ct  mala  merita  mea, 
ipsiusque  merita  offero  pro  merilo  quod  ego  debuissem  habere  ncc  liabco ;  si  dix- 
erit  quod  tibi  est  iratus,  die,  Domine,  mortem  Domini  Jesu  Christi  oppono  inter 
me  et  iram  tuam. 

t  Conscicntia  mea  meruit  damnationem,  et  penitentia  mea  non  sufficitad  satis- 
factionem,  sed  cerium  est  quod  misericordia  tua  superat  omnem  offensionem. 


24  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

deserved  damnation,  and  my  repentance  is  not  sufficient  for 
satisfaction,  but  most  certain  it  is,  that  thy  mercy  aboundeth 
above  all  offence."  And  this  seems  to  me  a  better  direction, 
than  those  more  lately  given  by  some  of  the  Roman  church. 
Such  is  the  prayer  suggested  to  a  sick  man,  by  Johan  Polan- 
dus,  lib.  Methodus  in  adjuvandis  morientihus.  "  Lord  Jesus, 
join  my  obedience  with  all  that  thou  hast  done  and  suffered, 
out  of  thy  perfect  charity  and  obedience.  And  with  the  riches 
of  the  satisfactions  and  merits  of  this  love,  deign  to  offer  it  to 
the  Eternal  Father."*  Or  that  of  a  greater  author,  Antidot, 
Animse,  fol.  17.  "0  rosy  company  of  the  martyrs,  offer  for  me, 
now  and  at  the  hour  of  my  death,  the  merits  of  your  faithful- 
ness, constancy,  and  precious  blood,  together  with  the  blood  of 
the  immaculate  lamb,  shed  for  the  salvation  of  all."t  Hierom, 
long  before  Anselm,!^spake  to  the  same  purpose.^  "When  the 
day  of  judgment,  or  of  death,  shall  come,  all  hands  will  be 
dissolved,  (that  is,  faint  or  fall  down,)  unto  which  it  is  said  in 
another  place,  Be  strengthened  ye  hands  that  hang  down.  But 
all  hands  shall  be  melted  down,  (that  is,  all  men's  strength  and 
confidence  shall  fail  them.)  because  no  ^^orks  shall  be  found 
which  can  answer  the  righteousness  of  God;  for  no  flesh  shall 
be  justified  in  his  sight.  Whence  the  Prophet  says,  in  the 
Psalm,  If  thou,  Lord,  shouldst  mark  iniquity,  who  should 
stand?"  And  Ambrose  to  the  same  purpose. §  "Let  no  man 
arrogate  any  thing  unto  himself — let  no  man  glory  in  his  own 
merits  or  good  deeds — let  no  man  boast  of  his  power — let  us 
all  hope  to  find  mercy  by  our  Lord  Jcsns,  for  we  shall  all  stand 
before  his  judgment  seat.  Of  him  will  I  beg  pardon — of  him 
will  I  desire  indulgence — what  other  hope  is  there  for  sin- 
ners?" 

*  Domine  Jesu,  conjunge,  obsccro,  obsequium  mcum  cum  omnibus  quos  tu 
egisti,  et  passus  cs  ex  tarn  pcrfecta  charitatc  et  obcdientia.  Et  cum  divitiis  satis- 
tactionum  et  meritorum  dilectionis,  Patri  lEterno  ilkid  ofl'crre  digneris. 

t  Tu  liinc  O  rosea  Martyrum  turba  offer  pro  me,  nunc  ct  in  hora  mortis  meas, 
merita  fidelitatum,  constantice  et  pretiosi  sanguinis,  cum  sanguine  agni  immacu- 
lati,  pro  omnium  sahite  ciFusi. 

\  Cum  dies  judicii  aut  dormitionis  advenerit,  omnes  manus  dissolventur  ;  quibus 
dicitur  in  alio  loco,  conibrtaniini  manus  dissolutaj ;  dissolventur  autcm  manus  quia 
nullum  opus  dignum  Dei  justitiarcperiatur,  etnon  justificabitur  in  conspectu  ejus 
omnis  vivens,  unde  Proplicta  dicit  in  Fsalmo,  si  iniquitates  attendas  Domine,  quis 
sustinebit  ?  lib.  6.  in  Isa.  in  cap.  xiii.  v.  6,  7. 

§  Nemo  ergo  sibi  arroget,  nemo  de  meritis  glorietur,  nemo  de  potestatc  se  jactet, 
omnes  speremus  per  Dominum  Jesum  misericordiam  invcnire,  quoniam  omnes 
ante  tribunal  ejus  stabimus:  de  illo  veniam,  de  illo  indulgcnliam  postulabo;  qutenam 
spes  alia  peccatoribus?  in  Psal.  c.\ix.  Rcsh. 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION.  25 

Wherefore,  if  men  will  be  turned  off  from  a  continual  regard 
to  the  greatness,  holiness,  and  majesty  of  God,  by  their  in- 
ventions in  the  heat  of  disputation,  if  they  do  forget  a  reve- 
rential consideration  of  what  will  become  them,  and  what  they 
may  betake  themselves  to,  when  they  stand  before  his  tribu- 
nal, they  may  engage  in  such  apprehensions,  as  they  dare  not 
abide  by  in  their  own  personal  trial;  for,  how  shall  man  be 
just  with  God?  Hence  it  has  been  observed,  that  the  school- 
men themselves,  in  their  meditations  and  devotional  writings, 
wherein  they  had  immediate  thoughts  of  God,  with  whom  they 
had  to  do.  did  speak  quite  another  language,  as  to  justification 
before  God,  than  they  do  in  their  wrangling  philosophical  fiery 
disputes  about  it.  And  I  had  rather  learn  what  some  men 
really  judge  about  their  own  justification,  from  their  prayers, 
than  their  writings.  Nor  do  I  remember,  that  I  did  ever  hear 
any  good  man  in  his  prayers,  use  any  expressions  about  justi- 
fication, pardon  of  sin,  and  righteousness  before  God,  wherein 
any  plea  from  any  thing  in  ourselves,  was  introduced  or  made 
use  of  The  prayer  of  Daniel  hath,  in  this  matter,  been  tjie 
substance  of  their  supplications.  "  0  Lord!  righteousness  be- 
longeth  unto  thee,  but  unto  us  confusion  of  faces;  we  do  not 
present  our  supplications  before  thee  for  our  own  righteous- 
ness, but  for  thy  great  mercies.  0  Lord  hear,  0  Lord  forgive, 
for  thine  own  sake,  0  my  God,"  Dan.  ix,  7,  IS,  19.  Or  that  of 
the  Psalmist,  ''Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  servant,  0 
Lord:  for  in  thy  sight  shall  no  man  living  be  justified,"  Psal. 
cxliii.  2.  Or,  "  If  thou.  Lord,  mark  iniquity.  Lord,  who  shall 
stand?  but  there  is  forgiveness  with  thee,  that  thou  mayest  be 
feared,"  Psal.  cxxx.  2,  3,  4.  On  which  words,  the  exposition 
of  Austin  is  remarkable,  speaking  of  David,  and  applying  it 
to  himself  "  Lo,  he  cries  out  under  the  burden  of  his  ini- 
quities. He  has  examined  himself,  he  has  examined  his  life, 
he  sees  it  covered  with  scandalous  crimes;  wherever  he  looks 
he  finds  no  goodness  in  himself  And  when  he  sees  on  every 
hand  such  numerous  and  aggravated  sins,  as  if  in  terror  he 
exclaims,  'If  thou.  Lord,  shouldst  mark  iniquities,  who  shall 
stand?'  For  he  sees  that  the  whole  life  of  man  is  beset  with 
sins,  like  barking  dogs;  that  all  consciences  are  accused  by  their 
own  thoughts,  that  a  pure  heart  can  not  be  found  which  can 
lay  hold  of  righteousness.  This  being  the  case,  let  the  hearts 
of  all  lay  hold  of  the  mercy  of  the  Lord  their  God,  and  say  to 
him,  'If  thou  Lord,  shouldst  mark  iniquities,  0  Lord  who  shall 
stand?'  But  what  is  the  ground  of  hope?   '  For  there  is  forgive- 

3 


26  THE    DOCTRI^•E    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

ness  with  thee.'  "*  And  whereas  we  may,  and  ought  to  repre- 
sent unto  God  in  our  suppHcations,  our  faith,  or  what  it  is  that 
we  believe  herein;  I  much  question,  whether  some  men  can 
find  in  their  hearts  to  pray  over  and  plead  before  him,  all  the 
arguments  and  distinctions  they  make  use  of,  to  prove  the  inte- 
rest of  our  works  and  obedience,  in  our  justification  before  him, 
or  enter  into  judgment  with  him,  upon  the  conclusions  which 
they  make  from  them.  Nor  will  many  be  satisfied  to  make 
use  of  that  prayer  which  Pelagius  taught  the  widow,  as  it  was 
objected  to  him  in  the  Diaspolitan  Synod. t  "Thou  knowest,  0 
Lord,  how  holy,  how  innocent,  how  pure  from  all  deceit  and 
rapine,  are  the  hands  which  I  stretch  forth  unto  thee;  how  just, 
how  unspotted  with  evil,  how  free  from  lying  are  those  lips 
wherewith  I  pour  forth  prayers  unto  thee,  that  thou  wouldst 
have  mercy  on  me."  And  yet,  although  he  taught  her  so  to 
plead  her  own  purity,  innocency  and  righteousness  before  God, 
yet  he  does  it  not,  as  those  whereon  she  might  be  absolutely 
justified,  but  only  as  the  condition  of  her  obtaining  mercy.  Nor 
have  I  observed,  that  any  public  Liturgies  (the  Mass-Book 
only  excepted,  wherein  there  is  a  frequent  recourse  to  the 
merits  and  intercession  of  saints,)  do  guide  men  in  their  pray- 
ers before  God,  to  plead  any  thing  for  their  acceptance  with 
him,  or  as  the  means  or  condition  thereof,  but  grace,  mercy, 
the  righteousness  and  blood  of  Christ  alone. 

Wherefore,  I  cannot  but  judge  it  best,  (others  may  think  of 
it  as  they  please,)  for  those  who  would  teach  or  learn  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  in  a  due  manner,  to  place  their  consciences 
in  the  presence  of  God,  and  their  persons  before  his  tribunal, 
and  then,  upon  a  due  consideration  of  his  greatness,  power,  ma- 
jesty, righteousness,  holiness,  of  the  terror  of  his  glory,  and 
sovereign  authority,  to  inquire  what  the  Scripture,  and  a  sense 
of  their  own  condition,  directs  them  to,  as  their  relief  and  re- 

*  Ecce  clamat  sub  molibus  iniquitatum  suarum.  Circumspcxit  se,  circumspexit 
vitam  suam,  vidit  illam  undique  flagitiis  ccopertam,  quacunque  rcspexit,  nihil  in 
se  boni  invenit:  Et  cum  tantaet  tarn  multa  peccata  undique  viderit,  tamquam  ex- 
pavescens,  exclaniavit,  si  iniquitates  obscrvaris  Domine,  quis  sustinebit?  vidit  enim 
prope  totam  vitam  humanam  circumlatrari  peccatis ;  accusari  omnes  conscientias 
cogitationibus  suis,  non  inveniri  Cor  Castum  praesumens  de  justitia,  quod  quia 
inveniri  non  potest,  prcBsumat  ergo  omnium  Cor  de  misericordia  Domini  Dei  sui, 
et  dicat  Deo,  si  iniquitates  observaris  Domine,  Domine  quis  sustinebit  ?  Quee  au- 
tem  est  spes  ?  quoniam  apud  te  propitiatio  est. 

t  Tu  nosti  Domine  quam  sanctse,  quam  innocentes,  quam  puree  ab  omni  fraude 
et  rapina  quas  ad  te  expando  manus;  quam  justa,  quam  immaculata  labia  et  ab 
omni  mendacio  libera,  quibus  tibi  ut  mihi  miserearis  preces  fundo. 


THE    DOCTKINE   OF  JUSTIFICATION.  27 

fuge,  and  what  plea  it  becomes  them  to  make  for  themselves. 
Secret  thoughts  of  God  and  ourselves — retired  meditations — the 
conduct  of  the  spirit  in  humble  supplications — death-bed  pre- 
parations for  an  immediate  appearance  before  God — faith  and 
love  in  exercise  on  Christ,  speak  other  things  for  the  most  part, 
than  many  contend  for. 

3.  A  clear  apprehension  and  due  sense  of  the  greatness  of 
our  apostasy  from  God — of  the  depravation  of  our  natures 
thereby — of  the  power  and  guilt  of  sin — of  the  holiness  and 
severity  of  the  law,  are  necessary  to  a  right  apprehension  of 
the  doctrine  of  justification.  Therefore,  to  the  declaration  of 
it  does  the  Apostle  premise  a  large  discourse,  thoroughly  to 
convince  the  minds  of  all  that  seek  to  be  justified,  with  a  sense 
of  these  things,  Rom.  i.  2,  3.  The  rules  which  he  has  given 
us,  the  method  which  he  prescribes,  and  the  ends  which  he  de- 
signs, are  those  which  we  shall  choose  to  follow.  And  he  lays 
it  down  in  general,  That  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed 
from  faith  to  faith,  and  that  the  just  shall  live  by  faith,  chap.  i. 
17.  But  he  declares,  not  in  particular,  the  causes,  nature,  and 
way  of  our  justification,  until  he  hath  fully  evinced  that  all  men 
areshut  upunder  this  state  of  sin, and  manifested  howdeplorable 
their  condition  is  thereby.  And  in  the  ignorance  of  these  things, 
in  the  denying  or  palliating  of  them,  lies  the  foundation  of  all 
misbelief  about  the  grace  of  God.  Pelagianism  in  its  first  root, 
and  all  its  present  branches,  is  resolved  thereinto.  For,  not  ap- 
prehending the  dread  of  our  original  apostasy  from  God,  nor 
the  consequence  of  it  in  the  universal  depravation  of  our  nature, 
they  disown  any  necessity,  either  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ, 
or  the  efficacy  of  divine  grace,  for  our  recovery  or  restoration. 
So,  upon  the  matter,  the  principal  ends  of  the  mission,  both  of 
the  Son  of  God,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  renounced;  which 
issues  in  the  denial  of  the  Deity  of  the  one,  and  the  personality 
of  the  other.  The  fall  which  we  had,  being  not  great,  and  the 
disease  contracted  thereby,  being  easily  curable,  and  there  be- 
ing little  or  no  evil  in  these  things,  which  are  now  luiavoidable 
to  our  nature,  it  is  no  great  matter  to  be  freed  or  justified  from 
all,  by  a  mere  act  of  favour  on  our  own  endeavours;  nor  is  the 
efficacious  grace  of  God  any  way  needful  to  our  sanctification 
and  obedience,  as  these  men  suppose. 

Where  these  or  the  like  conceits  are  admitted,  and  the  minds 
of  men  by  them  kept  off  from  a  due  apprehension  of  the  state 
and  guilt  of  sin,  and  their  consciences  from  being  affected  with 
the  terror  of  the  Lord,  and  curse  of  the  law  thereon,  justifica- 


28  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

tion  is  a  notion  to  be  dealt  withal,  pleasantly  or  subtilly,  as  men 
see  occasion.  And  hence  arise  the  differences  about  it,  at  pre- 
sent, I  mean  those  which  are  really  such,  and  not  merely  the 
different  ways  whereby  learned  men  express  their  thoughts  and 
apprehensions  concerning  it. 

By  some,  the  imputation  of  the  actual  apostasy  and  trans- 
gression of  Adam,  the  head  of  our  nature,  whereby  his  sin  be- 
came the  sin  of  the  world,  is  utterly  denied.  Hereby  both  the 
ground  the  Apostle  proceeds  on,  in  evincing  the  necessity  of 
our  justification,  or  our  being  made  righteous  by  the  obedience 
of  another,  and  all  the  arguments  brought  in  the  confirmation  of 
the  doctrine  of  it,  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, are  evaded  and  overthrown.  Socinus  de  Servator.  par. 
4,  cap.  6,  confesses  that  place  to  give  great  countenance  to  the 
doctrine  of  justification,  by  the  imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ.  And  therefore  he  sets  himself  to  oppose  with 
sundry  artifices,  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of  Adam  to  his 
natural  posterity.  For  he  perceived  well  enough,  that  upon 
the  admission  thereof,  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to  his  spiritual  seed,  would  unavoidably  follow,  accord- 
ing to  the  tenor  of  the  Apostle's  discourse. 

Some  deny  the  depravation  and  corruption  of  our  nature, 
which  ensued  on  our  apostasy  from  God,  and  the  loss  of  his 
image.  Or  if  they  do  not  absolutely  deny  it,  yet  they  so  ex- 
tenuate it,  as  to  render  it  a  matter  of  no  great  concern  to  us. 
Some  disease  and  distemper  of  the  soul  they  will  acknowledge, 
arising  from  the  disorder  of  our  aflections,  whereby  we  are 
apt  to  receive  in  such  vicious  habits  and  customs,  as  are  in  prac- 
tice in  the  world.  And  as  the  guilt  hereof  is  not  much,  so  the 
danger  of  it  is  not  great.  And  as  for  any  spiritual  filth  or  stain 
of  our  nature,  that  is  in  it,  it  is  clear  washed  away  from  all,  by 
baptism.  That  deformity  of  soul  which  came  upon  us  in  the 
loss  of  the  image  of  God,  wherein  the  beauty  and  harmony  of 
all  our  faculties,  in  all  their  actings  in  order  to  their  utmost 
end,  did  consist;  that  enmity  unto  God,  even  in  the  mind  which 
ensued  thereon;  that  darkness  which  our  understandings  were 
clouded,  yea,  blinded  withal;  the  spiritual  death  which  passed 
on  the  whole  soul,  and  total  alienation  from  the  life  of  God; 
that  impotency  unto  good;  that  inclination  unto  evil;  that  de- 
ceitfulness  of  sin;  that  power  and  eflicacy  of  corrupt  lusts, 
which  the  Scripture  and  experience  so  fully  charge  on  the  state 
of  lost  nature,  are  rejected  as  empty  notions  or  fables.  No 
wonder  if  such  persons  look  upon  imputed  righteousness  as  the 


THE    DOCTRINE   OF  JUSTIFICATION.  29 

shadow  of  a  dream,  who  esteem  those  things  which  evidence 
its  necessity,  to  be  but  fond  imaginations.  And  small  hope  is 
there  to  bring  such  men  to  value  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as 
imputed  to  them,  who  are  so  unacqainted  with  their  own  un- 
righteousness inherent  in  them.  Until  men  know  themselves 
better,  they  will  care  very  little  to  know  Christ  at  all. 

Against  such  as  these  the  doctrine  of  justification  may  be 
defended,  as  we  are  obliged  to  contend  for  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints,  and  as  the  mouths  of  gainsayers  are  to 
be  stopped.  But  to  endeavour  their  satisfaction  in  it,  whilst 
they  are  under  the  power  of  such  apprehensions,  is  a  vain  at- 
tempt. As  our  Saviour  said  to  them  to  whom  he  had  de- 
clared the  necessity  of  regeneration;  "  If  I  have  told  you  earth- 
ly things  and  you  believe  not,  how  shall  ye  believe  if  I  tell  you 
heavenly  things?"  so  may  we  say,  if  men  will  not  believe  those 
things,  whereof  it  would  be  marvellous,  but  that  the  reason  of 
it  is  known,  that  they  have  not  an  undeniable  evidence  and  ex- 
perience in  themselves,  how  can  they  believe  those  heavenly 
mysteries  which  respect  a  supposition  of  that  within  themselves 
which  they  will  not  acknowledge. 

Hence  some  are  so  far  from  any  concernment  in  a  perfect 
righteousness  to  be  imputed  to  them,  as  that  they  boast  of.a 
perfection  in  themselves.  So  did  the  Pelagians  of  old,  glory  of 
a  sinless  perfection  m  the  sight  of  Ljoci,  even^wlien  they  were 
convinced  of  sinful  miscarriages  in  the  sight  of  men,  as  they 
are  charged  by  Jerome,  lib.  2.  Dialog,  and  by  Austin,  lib.  2, 
contra  Julian,  cap.  S,  Such  persons  are  not  fit  subjects  for 
hearing  the  gospel.  Men  who  have  no  sense  in  their  own 
hearts  and  consciences  of  the  spiritual  disorder  of  their  souls,  of 
the  secret  continual  actings  of  sin,  with  deceit  and  violence  ob- 
structing all  that  is  good,  promoting  all  that  is  evil,  defiling  all 
that  is  done  by  them  through  the  lusting  of  the  flesh  against  the 
spirit,  as  contrary  to  it,  though  no  outward  perpetration  of 
sin  nor  actual  omission  of  duty  do  ensue  thereon;  who  are  not 
engaged  in  a  constant  watchful  conflict  against  the  first  mo- 
tions of  sin,  to  whom  they  are  not  the  greatest  burden  and 
sorrow  in  this  life,  causing  them  to  cry  out  for  deliverance  from 
them;  who  can  despise  those  who  make  acknowledgments  in 
their  confession  to  God,  of  their  sense  of  these  things,  with 
the  guilt  v/herewith  they  are  accompanied,  will  with  an  assured 
confidence  reject  and  contemn  what  is  offered  about  justifica- 
tion through  the  obedience  and  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed 
to  us.     For  no  man  will  be  so  fond  as  to  be  solicitous  of  a 

3* 


30 


THE    DOCTRINE   OF  JUSTIFICATION. 


righteousness  that  is  not  his  own,  who  has  at  home  in  a  readi- 
ness that  which  is  his  own,  which  will  serve  his  turn.  It  is 
tlierefore  the  ignorance  of  these  things  alone,  that  can  delude 
men  into  an  apprehension  of  their  justification  before  God  by 
their  own  personal  righteousness.  For  if  they  were  acquaint- 
ed with  them,  they  would  quickly  discern  such  an  imperfection 
in  the  best  of  their  duties,  such  a  frequency  of  sinful  irregulari- 
ties in  their  minds,  and  disorders  in  their  affections,  such  an  un- 
suitableness  in  all  that  they  are  and  do, from  the  inward  frames 
of  their  hearts  to  all  their  outward  actions,  to  the  great- 
ness and  holiness  of  God,  as  would  abate  their  confidence  in 
placing  any  trust  in  their  own  righteousness  for  their  justifi- 
cation. 

By  means  of  these  and  the  like  presumptuous  conceptions  of 
unenlightened  minds,  the  consciences  of  men  are  kept  ofi'from 
being  affected  with  a  due  sense  of  sin,  and  a  serious  considera- 
tion how  they  may  obtain  acceptance  before  God.  Neither  the 
consideration  of  the  holiness  or  terror  of  the  Lord;  nor  the 
severity  of  the  law  as  it  indispensably  requires  a  righteous- 
ness in  compliance  with  its  commands;  nor  the  promise  of  the 
gospel  declaring  and  tendering  a  righteousness,  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  in  answer  thereunto;  nor  the  uncertainty  of  their 
own  minds  upon  trials  and  surprisals,  as  having  no  stable 
ground  of  peace  to  anchor  on;  nor  the  consta,nt  secret  disquiet- 
ment  of  their  consciences,  if  not  seared  or  hardened  through 
the  deceitfulness  of  sin;  can  prevail  with  them  whose  thoughts 
are  prepossessed  with  such  slight  conceptions  of  the  state  and 
guilt  of  sin,  to  fly  for  refuge  to  the  only  hope  that  is  set  be- 
fore them,  or  really  and  distinctly  to  comport  with  the  only 
way  of  deliverance  and  salvation. 

Wherefore  if  we  would  either  teach  or  learn  the  doctrine  of 
justification  in  a  due  manner,  a  clear  apprehension  of  the  great- 
ness of  our  apostasy  from  God,  a  due  sense  of  the  guilt  of 
sin,  a  deep  experience  of  its  power,  all  with  respect  to 
the  holiness  and  law  of  God,  are  necessary  to  us.  We 
have  nothing  to  do  in  this  matter  with  men  who  through  the 
fever  of  pride  have  lost  the  understanding  of  their  own  miser- 
able condition.  For  as  Austin  remarks,  "Nature  is  so  evi- 
dently depraved,  that  not  to  see  it,  is  a  proof  of  the  greatest 
depravity."*  The  whole  need  not  the  physician  but  the  sick. 
Those  who  are  pricked  to  the  heart  for  sin,  and  cry  out  what 

*  Natura  sic  apparet  vitiata  ut  hoc  majoris  vitii  sit  non  videre. 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF  JUSTIFICATION,  3  1 

shall  we  do  to  be  saved,  will  understand  what  we  have  to  say. 
Against  others  we  must  defend  the  truth  as  God  shall  enable. 
And  it  may  be  made  good  by  all  sorts  of  instances,  that  as  men 
rise  in  their  notions  about  the  extenuation  of  sin,  so  they  fall  in 
their  regard  to  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And  it 
is  no  less  true  also  on  the  other  hand,  as  unbelief  works  in 
men  a  disesteem  of  the  person  and  righteousness  of  Christ,  they 
are  cast  inevitably  to  seek  for  countenance  to  their  own 
consciences,  in  the  extenuation  of  sin.  So  insensibly  are  the 
minds  of  men  diverted  from  Christ  and  seduced  to  place  their 
confidence  in  themselves.  Some  confused  respect  they  have 
to  him,  as  a  relief  they  know  not  how  nor  wherein;  but 
they  live  in  that  pretended  height  of  human  wisdom,  to  trust 
to  themselves.  So  they  are  instructed  to  do  by  the  best  of  the 
philosophers,  "  There  is  but  one  good,  which  is  the  cause  and 
support  of  a  happy  life;  that  is  to  trust  in  yourself,"*  Hence 
also  is  the  internal  sanctifying  grace  of  God  among  many 
equally  despised  with  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ.  The  sum  of  their  faith,  and  of  their  arguments  in  the 
confirmation  of  it,  is  given  by  the  learned  Roman  orator  and 
philosopher.  *'No  man  ever  thanks  God  for  virtue;  and 
rightly  too.  For  our  virtue  is  a  just  ground  of  praise  and 
glorying,  which  would  not  be  the  case  if  we  had  it  as  a  gift 
from  God,  and  not  from  ourselves,"! 

4,  The  opposition  that  the  Scripture  makes  between  grace 
and  works  in  general,  with  the  exclusion  of  the  one  and  the 
assertion  of  the  other  in  our  justification,  deserves  a  previous 
consideration.  The  opposition  intended  is  not  made  between 
grace  and  works  or  our  own  obedience,  as  to  their  essence, 
nature  and  consistency  in  the  order  and  method  of  our  salva- 
tion, but  only  with  respect  to  our  justification.  I  do  not  de- 
sign herein  to  plead  any  particular  testimonies  of  Scripture, 
as  to  their  especial  sense  or  declaration  of  the  mind  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  them,  which  will  afterwards  be  with  some  dili- 
gence inquired  into;  but  only  to  take  a  view  which  way  the 
eye  of  the  Scripture  guides  our  apprehensions,  and  what 
compliance  there  is  in  our  ov/n  experience  with  that  guidance. 
,    The  principal  seat  of  this  doctrine,  as  will  be  confessed  by 

*  Unum  bonum  est,  quod  beatte  vitfB  causa  et  firmainentum  est,  tibi  fidere. 
Senec.  Epist.31, 

t  Virtutem  nemo  unquam  Deo  acceptam  retulit;  nimirum  rectc.  Propter  vir- 
tutem  enim  jure  laudamur,  et  in  virtute  recte  gloriaraur,  quod  non  contingeret,  si 
donum  a  Deo,  non  a  nobis  haberemus.     Tull,  de  nat.  Door. 


32 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 


all,  is  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians, 
whereto  that  also  to  the  Hebrews  may  be  added.  But  in 
that  to  the  Romans  it  is  most  eminently  declared.  For  there- 
in is  it  handled  by  the  Apostle  ex  professo  at  large,  and  that 
both  doctrinally,  and  in  the  way  of  controversy  with  them 
by  whom  the  truth  was  opposed.  And  it  is  worth  our  con- 
sideration what  process  lie  makes  towards  the  declaration  of 
it,  and  what  principles  he  proceeds  upon  therein. 

1.  He  lays  it  down  as  the  fundamental  maxim  which  he 
would  proceed  upon,  or  as  a  general  thesis  including  the  sub- 
stance of  what  he  designed  to  explain  and  prove,  that,  in  tlie 
gospel  "the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed  from  iaith  to  faith, 
as  it  is  written,  the  just  shall  live  by  faith,'' chap.  i.  17.  All  sorts 
of  men  who  had  any  knowledge  of  God  and  themselves  were 
then,  as  they  must  be  always,  inquiring,  and  in  one  degree  or 
other  labouring  after  righteousness.  For  this  they  looked  on, 
and  that  justly,  as  the  only  means  of  an  advantageous  relation 
between  God  and  themselves.  Neither  had  the  generality  of 
men  any  other  thoughts,  but  that  this  righteousness  must  be 
their  own,  inherent  in  them,  and  performed  by  them,  as  Rom. 
X.  3.  For  as  this  is  tlie  language  of  a  natural  conscience,  and 
of  the  law,  and  suited  to  all  philosophical  notions  concerning 
the  nature  of  righteousness;  so  whatever  testimony  was  given 
of  another  kind  in  the  law  and  the  prophets,  (as  such  a  testi- 
mony is  given  to  a  righteousness  of  God  without  the  lav/, 
chap,  iii  21,)  there  was  a  veil  upon  it  as  to  the  understanding 
of  all  sorts  of  men.  As  therefore  righteousness  is  that  which 
all  men  seek  after,  and  cannot  but  seek  after  who  design  or 
desire  acceptance  with  God,  so  it  is  in  vain  to  inquire  of  the 
law,  of  a  natural  conscience,  of  philosophical  reason,  after  any 
righteousness  but  what  consists  in  inherent  habits  and  acts  of 
our  own.  Neither  law,  nor  natural  conscience,  nor  reason,  do 
know  any  other.  But  in  opposition  to  this  righteousness  of 
our  own,  and  the  necessity  thereof,  testified  to  by  the  law, 
in  its  primitive  constitution,  by  the  natural  light  of  conscience, 
and  the  apprehension  of  the  nature  of  things  by  reason,  the 
apostle  declares  that  in  the  gospel  there  is  revealed  another 
righteousness  which  is  also  the  righteousness  of  another,  the 
righteousness  of  God,  and  that  from  faith  to  faith.  For  not 
only  is  the  righteousness  itself  revealed  foreign  froratliose  other 
principles,  but  also  the  manner  of  our  participation  of  it,  or  its 
communication  to  us  from  faith  to  faith,  (tlie  faith  of  God  in 
the  revelation,  and  our  faith  in  the  acceptation  of  it,  being  only 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  jrSTIFICATION. 


33 


here  concerned)  is  an  eminent  revelation.  Righteousness  of 
all  things  should  rather  seem  to  be  frojiijs^i'ks  to  works, 
from  the  work  of  grace  in  us,  to  the  works  of  obedience  done 
by  us,  as  the  papists  affirm.  No,  says  the  apostle,  it  is  from 
faith  to  faith,  whereof  afterwards. 

This  is  the  general  thesis  the  Apostle  proposes  for  confirm- 
ation, and  he  seems  therein  to  exclude  from  justification  every 
thing  but  the  righteousness  of  God  and  the  faith  of  believers. 
And  to  this  purpose  he  considers  all  persons  that  did  or  might 
pretend  to  righteousness  or  seek  after  it,  and  all  ways  and 
means  whereby  they  hoped  to  attain  to  it,  or  whereby  it 
might  most  probably  be  obtained,  declaring  the  failing  of 
all  persons,  and  the  insufficiency  of  all  means  as  to  them,  for 
the  obtaining  a  righteousness  of  our  own  before  God.  And  as 
to  persons, 

1.  He  considers  the  Gentiles,  with  all  their  notions  of  God, 
their  practice  in  religious  worship,  with  their  conversation 
thereon.  And  from  the  whole  of  what  might  be  observed 
amongst  them,  he  concludes  that  they  neither  were,  nor  could 
be  justified  before  God,  but  tha^thev  were  alK  and  that  most 
deservedly,  obnoxious  to  the  sentence  of  death.  And  what- 
ever men  may  discourse  concerning  the  justification  and  salva- 
tion of  any,  without  the  revelation  of  the  righteousness  of  God 
by  the  Gospel  from  faith  to  faith,  it  is  expressly  contradictory 
to  his  whole  discourse,  chap,  i.from  ver.  19  to  the  end. 

2.  He  considers  the  Jews  who  enjoyed  the  written  law,  and 
the  privileges  wlierewith  it  was  accompanied,  especially  that  of 
circumcision,  which  was  the  outward  seal  of  God's  covenant. 
And  on  many  considerations,  with  many  arguments,  he  ex- 
cludes them  also  froni  any  possibility  of  attaining  justification 
before  God  by  any  oi^he  privileges  they  enjoyed7or  their  own 
compliance  therewithal,  chap.  ii.  And  both  sorts  he  excludes 
distinctly  from  this  privilege  of  righteousness  before  God,  with 
this  one  argument,  that  both  of  them  sinned  openly  against 
that  which  they  took  for  the  rule  of  their  righteousness,  namely, 
the  Gentiles  against  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  Jews  against 
the  law;  whence  it  inevitably  follows,  that  none  of  them  could 
attain  to  the  righteousness  of  their  own  rule.  But  he  proceeds 
farther  to  that  which  is  common  to  them  all.     And, 

3.  He  proves  the  same  against  all  sorts  of  persons,  whether 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  from  the  consideration  of  the  universal  de- 
pravation of  nature  in  them  all,  and  the  horrible  effects  that 
necessarily  ensue  thereon  in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  men,  chap. 


34 


THE    DOCTKINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 


iii.  So  evidencing,  that  as  they  all  were,  so  it  could  not  fall 
out  but  that  nil  ir^nst  be  shut  up  under  sin,  and  come  short  of 
righteousness.  !So  trom  persons  he  proceeds  to  things  or  means 
of  righteousness.     And, 

4.  Because  the  law  was  given  of  God  immediately  as  the 
whole  and  only  rule  of  our  obedience  to  him,  and  the  works  of 
the  law,  are  therefore  all  that  is  required  of  us,  these  may  be 
pleaded  with  some  pretence  as  those  whereby  we  may  be  justi- 
fied. Wherefore  in  particular  he  considers  the  nature,  use,  and 
end  of  the  law,  manifesting  its  utter  insufficiency  to  be  a  means 
of  our  justification  before  God,  chap.  iii.  19,  20. 

5.  It  may  be  yet  objected,  that  the  law  and  its  works  may 
be  thus  insufficient  as  it  is  obeyed  by  unbelievers  in  the  state 
of  nature,  without  the  aids  of  grace  administered  in  the  pro- 
mise; but  with  respect  to  them  who  are  regenerate  and  do 
believe,  whose  faith  and  works  are  accepted  with  God,  it  may 
be  otherwise.  To  obviate  this  objection,  he  gives  an  instance 
in  two  of  the  most  eminent  believers  under  the  Old  Testament, 
namely,  Abraham  and  David,  declaring  that  all  works  what- 
ever were  excluded  in  and  from  tlieir  justification,  chap.  iv. 

On  these  principles,  and  by  this  gradation,  he  peremptorily 
concludes,  that  all  and  every  one  of  the  sons  of  men,  as  to 
any  thing  that  is  in  themselves  or  can  be  done  by  them,  or 
be  wrought  in  them,  are  "guilty  before  God,"  obnoxious  to 
death,  shut  up  under  sin,  and  have  their  mouths  so  stopped,  as 
to  be  deprived  of  all  pleas  in  their  own  excuse;  that  they  had 
no  righteousness  wherewith  to  appear  before  God,  and  that  all 
the  ways  and  means  whence  they  expected  it,  were  insufficient 
to  that  purpose. 

Hereon  lie  proceeds  with  his  inquiry  how  men  may  be  de- 
livered from  this  condition,  and  come  to*be  justified  in  the  sight 
of  God.  And  in  the  resolution  hereof  he  makes  no  mention 
of  any  thing  in  themselves,  but  only  faith  whereby  we  receive 
the  atonement.  That  whereby  we  are  justified,  he  says,  is  the 
righteousness  of  God  which  is  by  the  faith  of  Christ  Jesus,  or 
that  we  are  justified  freely  by  grace  through  the  redemption 
that  is  in  him,  chap.  iii.  22,  23,  24,  25.  And  not  content  here 
with  this  answer  to  the  inquiry  how  lost  convinced  sinners 
may  come  to  be  justified  before  God,  namely,  that  it  is  by  the 
righteousness  of  God  revealed  from  faith  to  faith,  by  grace,  by 
the  blood  of  Christ,  as  he  is  set  forth  for  a  propitiation;  he  im- 
mediately proceeds  to  a  positive  exclusion  of  every  thing  in 
and  of  ourselves  that  might  pretend  to  an  interest  herein,  as 


THE    DOCTRINE     OF    JUSTIFICATION.  35 

that  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  righteousness  of  God  as 
revealed  in  the  gospel,  and  witnessed  to  by  the  law  and  the 
prophets.  How  contrary  their  scheme  of  divinity  is  to  this 
design  of  the  Apostle,  and  his  management  of  it,  who  affirm 
that  before  the  law  men  were  justified  by  obedience  to  the 
light  of  nature,  and  some  particular  revelations  made  to  them 
in  things  of  their  own  especial  private  concernment;  and  that 
after  the  giving  of  the  law  they  were  so  by  obedience  to  God 
according  to  the  directions  thereof,  as  also  that  the  heathen 
might  obtain  the  same  benefit  in  compliance  with  the  dictates 
of  reason,  cannot  be  contradicted  by  any  who  have  not  a  mind 
to  be  contentious. 

Answerable  to  this  declaration  of  the  mind  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  herein  by  the  Apostle,  is  the  constant  tenor  of  the  Scrip- 
ture speaking  to  the  same  purpose.  The  grace  of  God,  the  pro- 
mise of  mercy,  the  free  pardon  of  sin,  the  blood  of  Christ,  his 
obedience  and  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,  rested  in  and 
received  by  faith,  are  every  where  asserted  as  the  causes  and 
means  of  our  justification,  in  opposition  to  any  thing  in  our- 
selves, so  expressed  as  it  useth  to  express  the  best  of  our  obedi- 
ence and  the  utmost  of  our  personal  righteousness.  Wherever 
mention  is  made  of  the  duties,  obedience,  and  personal  right- 
eousness of  the  best  of  men  with  respect  to  their  justification, 
they  are  all  renounced  by  them,  and  they  betake  themselves 
to  sovereign  grace  and  mercy  alone.  Some  places  to  this  pur- 
pose may  be  recounted. 

The  foundation  of  the  whole  is  laid  in  the  first  promise 
wherein  the  destruction  of  the  work  of  the  devil  by  the  suffer- 
ing of  the  seed  of  the  woman,  is  proposed  as  the  only  relief  for 
sinners,  and  only  means  of  the  recovery  of  the  favour  of  God. 
"  It  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel,"  Gen. 
iii.  15.  "Abraham  believed  in  the  Lord,  and  he  counted  it 
unto  him  for  righteousness,"  Gen.  xv.  6.  "And  Aaron  shall 
lay  both  his  hands  on  the  head  of  the  live  goat,  and  confess 
over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  all  their 
transgressions  in  all  their  sins,  putting  them  on  the  head  of  the 
goat;  and  the  goat  shall  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniquities  unto 
a  land  not  inhabited,"  Lev.  xvi.  21,22.  "I  will  go  in  the 
strength  of  the  Lord  God,  I  will  make  mention  of  thy  right- 
eousness, even  of  thine  only,"  Psal.  Ixxi.  16.  "  If  thou  shouldst 
mark  iniquity,  0  Lord,  who  shall  stand?  but  there  is  forgive- 
ness with  thee  that  thou  mayest  be  feared,"  Psal.  cxxx.  3,  4. 
"  Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  servant,  for  in  thy  sight 


36  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

shall  no  man  living  be  justified,"  Psal.  cxliii.  2.  "Behold  he 
put  no  trust  in  his  servants,  and  his  angels  he  charged  with 
folly,  how  much  less  on  them  that  dwell  in  houses  of  clay, 
whose  foundation  is  in  the  dust,"  Job.  iv.  18,  19.  "Fury  is 
not  in  me ;  who  would  set  the  briers  and  thorns  against  me  in 
battle,  I  would  go  through  them,  I  would  burn  them  together. 
Or  let  him  take  hold  of  my  strength  that  he  may  make  peace 
with  me,  and  he  shall  make  peace  with  me,"  Isa.  xxvii,  4,  5. 
"  Surely  shall  one  say,  in  the  Lord  have  I  righteousness  and 
strength,  in  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of  Israel  be  justified  and 
glory,"  Isa.  xlv.  .24,  25.  "  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray, 
we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way,  and  the  Lord  hath 
laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  By  his  knowledge  shall  my 
righteous  servant  justify  many,  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniqui- 
ties," Isa.  liii.  6.  11.  "  For  this  is  his  name  whereby  he  shall 
be  called,  the  Lord  our  Righteousness,"  Jer.  xxiii.  6.  "  But 
we  are  all  as  an  unclean  thing,  and  all  our  righteousnesses  are 
as  filthy  rags,"  Isa.  xliv.  6.  "  He  shall  finish  the  transgression 
and  make  an  end  of  sin,  and  make  reconciliation  for  iniquity, 
and  bring  in  everlasting  righteousness,"  Dan.  ix.  24.  "  Unto 
as  many  as  received  him  he  gave  power  to  become  the  sons  of 
God,  even  to  them  that  believe  in  his  name,"  John  i.  12.  "  For 
as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must 
the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life,"  chap.  iii.  14,  15; 
see  ver,  16, 17,  18.  "Be  it  known  therefore  unto  you  men  and 
brethren,  that  through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  and  by  him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from 
all  things  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of 
Moses,"  Acts  xiii.  38,39.  "That  they  may  receive  forgive- 
ness of  sins  and  inheritance  among  them  that  are  sanctified  by 
faith  that  is  in  me,"  chap.  xxvi.  18.  "  Being  justified  freely  by 
his  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ,  whom 
God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his 
blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that 
are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God.  To  declare  at  this 
time  his  righteousness,  that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier 
of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus.  Where  then  is  boasting?  it  is 
excluded:  by  what  law?  of  works?  nay,  but  by  the  law  of  faith. 
Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without 
the  deeds  of  the  law,"  Rom.  iii.  24,  25,  26,  27,  28.  "  For  if 
Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath  whereof  to  glory, 
but  not  before  God;  for  what  saith  the  Scripture,  Abraham  be- 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION.  37 

lieved  God,  and  it  was-counted  to  him  for  righteousness;  now 
to  him  that  worketh  is  the  reward,  not  reckoned  of  grace 
but  of  debt.  But  to  him  that  worketli  not,  but  beUeveth  on 
him  that  jnstifieth  the  ungodly,  liis  faith  is  counted  for  right- 
eousness. Even  as  David  also  describeth  the  blessedness  of 
the  man  unto  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without 
works,  saying.  Blessed  are  those  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven, 
and  whose  sins  are  covered;  Blessed  is  the  man  unto  whom  the 
Lord  will  not  impute  sin,"  Rom.  iv.  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8.  "  But  not 
as  the  offence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift;  for  if  through  the  off"ence 
of  one,  many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift 
by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded 
unto  many.  And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the 
gift;  for  the  judgment  was  by  one  to  condemnation:  but  the  free 
gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justification.  For  if  by  one  man's 
off'ence  death  reigned  by  one,  much  more  they  which  receive 
abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness,  shall  reign 
in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ.  Therefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  unto  condemnation,  even  so  by 
the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto 
justification  of  hfe.  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many 
were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be 
made  righteous,"  chap.  v.  15, 16,  17,  IS,  19.  "  There  is  there- 
fore no  condemnation  unto  them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus, 
who  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  Spirit.  For  the  law 
of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  hath  made  me  free  from  the 
law  of  sin  and  death ;  for  what  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that 
it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  sending  his  own  Son  in 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the 
flesh.  That  tlie  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in 
us,"  chap.  viii.  1,  2,  3,  4.  "  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law 
for  righteousness  unto  every  one  that  believeth,"  chap.  x.  4. 
"  And  if  by  grace,  then  it  is  no  more  of  works,  otherwise  grace 
is  no  more  grace ;  but  if  it  be  of  works,  then  it  is  no  more  grace, 
otherwise  work  is  no  more  work,"  chap.  xi.  G.  "But  of  him 
are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom 
and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  redemption,"  1  Cor. 
i.  30.  "  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no 
sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him," 
2  Cor.  V.  21.  "Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the 
works  of  the  law,  but  by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ:  even  we 
have  believed  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  the 
faith  of  Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law:  for  by  the 

4 


38  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    JIJSTIFICATIOX. 

works  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified,"  Gal.  ii.  16.  "  But 
that  no  man  is  justified  by  the  law  in  the  sight  of  God,  is  evi- 
dent. For  the  j List  shall  live  by  faith,  and  the  law  is  not  of  faith; 
but  the  man  that  doth  them  shall  live  in  them.  Christ  hath 
redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for 
us,"  chap.  iii.  11,  12,  13.  "  For  by  grace  ye  are  saved  through 
faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God.  Not  of 
works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.  For  we  are  his  workman- 
ship created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which  God  hath 
before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in  them,"  Ephes.  ii.  S,  9, 
10.  "  Yea,  doubtless,  and  I  count  all  things  loss  for  the  excel- 
lency of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord,  for  whom  I 
have  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things,  and  do  count  them  but  dung 
that  I  may  win  Christ;  and  be  found  in  him,  not  having  my 
own  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is 
through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God 
by  faith,"  Phil.  iii.  8,  9.  "  Who  hath  saved  us  and  called  us 
with  an  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according 
unto  his  own  purpose,  and  grace  which  was  given  us  in  Christ 
Jesus  before  the  world  began,"  2  Tim.  i.  9.  "  That  being  justi- 
fied by  his  grace,  we  should  be  made  heirs  according  to  the  hope 
of  eternal  life,"  Tit.  iii.  7.  "  He  hath  once  appeared  in  the  end 
of  the  world  to  put  away  sin,"  Heb.  ix.  26.  28.  "  Having  in  him- 
self purged  our  sins,"  chap.  i.  3.  "  For  by  one  offering  he  hath 
perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified,"  chap.  x.  14.  "  For 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  cleanseth  ns  from  all 
sin,"  1  John  i.  7.  "  Wherefore  unto  him  that  loved  us,  and 
washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us 
kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his  father,  to  him  be  glory  and 
dominion  for  ever  and  ever,  Amen."  Rev.  i.  5,  6. 

These  are  some  of  the  places  which  at  present  occur  to 
remembrance,  wherein  the  Scripture  represents  to  us  the 
grounds,  causes,  and  reasons  of  our  acceptation  with  God. 
The  especial  import  of  many  of  them,  and  the  evidence  of  truth 
that  is  in  them  will  be  afterwards  considered.  Here  we  take 
only  a  general  view  of  them.  And  every  thing  in  and  of  our- 
selves under  any  consideration  whatever,  seems  to  be  excluded 
from  our  justification  before  God,  faith  alone  excepted  whereby 
we  receive  his  grace  and  the  atonement.  And  on  the  other 
side,  the  whole  of  our  acceptation  with  him  seems  to  be  as- 
signed to  grace,  mercy,  the  obedience  and  blood  of  Christ; 
in  opposition  to  our  own  worth  and  righteousness,  or  our 
own  works  and  obedience.     And  I  cannot  but  suppose  that  the 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION.  39 

soul  of  a  convinced  sinner,  if  not  prepossessed  with  prejudice, 
will  in  general  not  judge  amiss  whether  of  these  things  that  are 
set  in  opposition  one  to  the  other,  he  should  betake  himself 
to,  that  he  may  be  justified. 

But  it  is  replied,  these  things  are  not  to  be  understood  abso- 
lutely and  without  limitations.  Sundry  distinctions  are  neces- 
sary, that  we  may  come  to  understand  the  mind  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  sense  of  the  Scripture  in  these  ascriptions  to  grace, 
and  exclusions  of  the  law,  our  own  works  and  righteousness 
from  our  justification.  For  (1.)  the  law  is  either  the  moral  or 
the  ceremonial  law;  the  latter  indeed  is  excluded  from  any 
place  in  our  justification,  but  not  the  former.  (2.)  Works  re- 
quired by  the  law  are  either  wrought  before  faith,  without  the 
aid  of  grace;  or  after  believing,  by  the  help  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  former  are  excluded  from  our  justification,  but  not  the 
latter.  (3.)  Works  of  obedience  wrought  after  grace  received, 
may  be  considered  either  as  sincere  only,  or  absolutely  perfect, 
according  to  what  was  originally  required  in  the  covenant  of 
works.  Those  of  the  latter  sort  are  excluded  from  any  place 
in  our  justification,  but  not  those  of  the  former.  (4.)  There  is 
a  two-fold  justification  before  God  in  this  life,  a  first  and  a 
second;  and  we  must  diligently  consider  with  respect  to 
whether  of  these  justifications  anything  is  spoken  in  the  Scrip- 
ture. (5.)  Justification  may  be  considered  either  as  to  its  be- 
ginning, or  as  to  its  continuation,  and  so  it  has  divers  causes 
under  these  divers  respects.  (6.)  Works  may  be  considered 
either  as  meritorious  ex  condigno,  so  as  their  merit  should  arise 
from  their  own  intrinsic  worth,  or  ex  congruo,  only  with  respect 
to  the  covenant  and  promise  of  God.  Those  of  the  first  sort 
are  excluded  at  least  from  the  first  justification;  the  latter  may 
have  place  both  in  the  first  and  second.  (7.)  Moral  causes  may 
be  of  many  sorts;  preparatory,  dispository,  meritorious,  condi- 
tionally efficient,  or  only  sine  quihus  non.  And  we  must 
diligently  inquire  in  what  sense,  under  the  notion  of  what  cause 
or  causes,  our  works  are  excluded  from  our  justification,  and 
luider  what  notions  they  are  necessary  thereunto.  And  there 
is  no  one  of  these  distinctions  but  it  needs  many  more  to  ex- 
plain it,  which  accordingly  are  made  use  of  by  learned  men. 
And  so  specious  a  colour  may  be  put  on  these  things,  when 
warily  managed  by  the  art  of  disputation,  that  very  few  are 
able  to  discern  the  ground  of  them,  or  what  there  is  of  substance 
in  that  which  is  pleaded  for;  and  fewer  yet,  on  whether  side  the 
truth  doth  lie.     But  he  who  is  really  convinced  of  sin,  and 


40  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATIOIV. 

being  also  sensible  of  what  it  is  to  enter  into  judgment  with  the 
holy  God,  inquires  for  himself  and  not  for  others,  how  he  may- 
come  to  be  accepted  with  him,  will  be  apt  upon  the  considera- 
tion of  all  these  distinctions  and  sub-distinctions  wherewith 
they  are  attended,  to  say  to  their  diUXhoxs,  Fecistis  probe,  incer- 
tior  Slim  Tnulto,  quain  diidum.  "  You  have  done  well!  I  am 
much  more  at  a  loss  than  before."  My  inquiry  is  how  I  shall 
come  before  the  Lord,  and  bow  myself  before  the  high  God? 
how  shall  I  escape  the  wrath  to  come?  what  shall  I  plead  in 
judgment  before  God,  that  I  may  be  absolved,  acquitted,  justi- 
fied? where  shall  I  have  a  righteousness  that  will  endure  a 
trial  in  his  presence?  If  I  should  be  harnessed  with  a  thousand 
of  these  distinctions,  I  am  afraid  they  would  prove  thorns  and 
briars,  which  he  would  pass  through  and  consume. 

The  inquiry  therefore  is,  upon  the  consideration  of  the  state 
of  the  person  to  be  justified  before  mentioned  and  described, 
and  the  proposal  of  the  reliefs  in  our  justification  as  now  ex- 
pressed, whether  it  be  the  wisest  and  safest  course  for  such  a 
person  seeking  to  be  justified  before  God,  to  betake  himself 
absolutely,  his  Vvhole  trust  and  confidence,  to  sovereign  grace 
and  the  mediation  of  Christ,  or  to  have  some  reserve  for,  or 
to  place  some  confidence  in,  his  own  graces,  duties,  works 
and  obedience?  In  putting  this  great  difference  to  umpirage, 
that  we  may  not  be  thought  to  fix  on  a  partial  arbitrator,  we 
shall  refer  it  to  one  of  our  greatest  and  most  learned  adversa- 
ries in  this  cause.  And  he  positively  gives  us  his  determi- 
nation and  resolution  in  those  known  words.*  "  By  reason  of 
the  uncertainty  of  our  own  righteousness,  and  the  danger  of 
vain  glory,  it  is  the  safest  course  to  repose  our  whole  trust 
in  the  mercy  and  kindness  or  grace  of  God  alone." 

And  this  determination  of  this  important  inquiry,  he  con- 
firms with  two  testimonies  of  Scripture,  as  he  might  have  done 
it  with  many  more.  But  those  which  he  thought  meet  to  men- 
tion are  not  impertinent.  The  first  is  Dan.  ix.  18.  "We  do  not 
present  our  supplications  before  thee  for  our  righteousnesses  but 
for  thy  great  mercies."  And  the  other  is  that  of  our  Saviour, 
Luke  xvii.  10.  "When  ye  have  done  all  these  things  which 
are  commanded  you,  say  we  are  unprofitable  servants."  And 
after  he  has  confirmed  his  resolution  with  sundry  testimonies 
of  the   fathers,  he   closes   his   discourse  with   this   dilemma, 

*  Propter  incertitudinem  propriae  justitiae,  et  periculura  inanis  gloriae,  Tutis- 
simum  est  fiduciam  totam  in  sola  misericordia  Dei  ct  benignitate  reponere, 
Bellar.  de  Justificat.  lib.  v.  cap.  7,  prop.  3. 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION,  41 

"  Either  a  man  hath  true  merits,  or  he  hath  not.  If  he  hath 
not,  he  is  perniciously  deceived  (when  he  trusts  in  any 
thing  but  the  mercy  of  God  alone)  and  seduces  himself,  trust- 
ing in  false  merits;  If  he  has  them  he  loses  nothing  whilst 
he  looks  not  to  them,  but  trusts  in  God  alone."  So  that 
whether  a  man  have  any  good  works  or  no,  as  to  his  justifica- 
tion before  God,  it  is  best  and  safest  for  him,  not  to  have  any 
regard  to  them,  or  put  any  trust  in  them.  And  if  this  be  so, 
he  might  have  spared  all  his  pains  he  took  in  writing  his  so- 
phistical books  about  justification,  whose  principal  design  is  to 
seduce  the  minds  of  men  into  a  contrary  opinion.  And  so,  for 
aught  I  know,  they  may  spare  their  labour  also  without  any 
disadvantage  to  the  church  of  God,  or  their  own  souls,  who 
so  earnestly  contend  for  some  kind  of  interest  or  other,  for  our 
own  duties  and  obedience  in  our  justification  before  God,  see- 
ing it  will  be  found  that  they  place  their  own  whole  trust  and 
confidence  in  the  grace  of  God  by  Jesus  Christ  alone.  For  to 
what  purpose  do  we  labour  and  strive  with  endless  disputa- 
tions, arguments  and  distinctions  to  prefer  our  duties  and  obe- 
dience to  some  office  in  our  justification  before  God,  if  when 
we  have  done  all  we  find  it  the  safest  course  m  our  own  per- 
sons to  abhor  ourselves  with  Job  in  the  presence  of  God,  to 
betake  ourselves  to  sovereign  grace  and  mercy  with  the  pub- 
lican, and  to  place  all  our  confidence  in  them  through  the  obe- 
dience and  blood  of  Christ? 

So  died  that  great  Emperor  Charles  V.  as  Thuanus  gives  the 
account  of  his  Novlssima.  So  he  reasoned  with  himself;* 
"That  in  himself  he  was  altogether  unworthy  to  obtain  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  by  his  own  works  or  merits,  but  that  his 
Lord  God  who  enjoyed  it  on  a  double  right  or  title,  by  inheri- 
tance of  the  Father,  and  the  merit  of  his  own  passion,  was 
contented  with  the  one  himself,  and  freely  granted  unto  him 
the  other:  on  whose  free  grant  he  laid  claim  thereunto,  and  in 
confidence  thereof  he  should  not  be  confounded;  for  the  oil  of 
mercy  is  poured  only  into  the  vessel  of  faith  or  trust;  that  this 

*  Se  quidem  indignum  esse  qui  propriis  mcritis  reg-nura  cooloruni  obtiiieret; 
sed  Donihium  Dcum  suum  qui  illud  duplici  jure  obtineat,  et  patris  haereditatc, 
et  passioiiis  merito,  altero  contcntum  esse,  alterurn  sibi  donare;  ex  cujus  dono 
illud  sibi  merito  vendicet,  hacque  fiduoia  fretus  minime  confundatur  ;  neque  enim 
oleum  miscricordiae  nisi  in  vase  fiduciae  poni ;  banc  hominis  fiduciam  esse  a  se 
deficientis  et  innitentis  domino  sue;  alioquin  propriis  meritis  fidere,  non  fidei 
esse  sed  pcrfidia;;  peccata  dcleri  per  Dei  indulgentiam,  idooque  credere  nos  debere 
peccata  deleri  non  posse  nisi  ab  eo  cui  soli  peccavimus,  et  in  quern  peccatuni 
non  cadit,  per  quem  solum  nobis  peccata  condonentur. 

4* 


42  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

is  the  trust  of  a  man  despairing  in  himself,  and  resting  in  his 
Lord;  otherwise  to  trust  to  his  own  works  or  merits,  is  not 
faith  but  treachery;  that  sins  are  blotted  out  by  the  mercy  of 
God ;  and  therefore  we  ought  to  believe  that  our  sins  can  be  par- 
doned by  him  alone  against  whom  alone  we  have  sinned;  with 
whom  there  is  no  sin,  and  by  whom  alone  sins  are  forgiven." 

This  is  the  faith  of  men  when  they  come  to  die,  and  those 
who  are  exercised  with  temptations  whilst  they  live.  Some 
are  hardened  in  sin,  and  endeavour  to  leave  this  world  with- 
out thoughts  of  another.  Some  are  stupidly  ignorant,  who 
neither  know  nor  consider  what  it  is  to  appear  in  the  presence 
of  God,  and  to  be  judged  by  him.  Some  are  seduced  to  place 
their  confidence  in  merits,  pardons,  indulgences,  and  future 
suiTrages  for  the  dead.  But  such  as  are  acquainted  with  God 
and  themselves  in  any  spiritual  manner,  who  fake  a  view  of 
the  time  that  is  past,  and  approaching  eternity,  into  which  they 
must  enter  by  the  judgment  seat  of  God,  however  they  may 
have  thought,  talked,  and  disputed  about  their  own  works  and 
obedience,  looking  on  Christ  and  his  righteousness  only  to 
make  up  some  small  defects  in  themselves,  will  come  at  last 
to  an  universal  renunciation  of  what  they  have  been  and  are, 
and  betake  themselves  to  Christ  alone  for  righteousness  or 
salvation.  And  in  the  whole  ensuing  discourse  I  shall  as  little 
as  is  possible  mix  myself  in  any  curious  scholastical  disputes. 
This  is  the  substance  of  what  is  pleaded  for,  that  men  should 
renounce  all  confidence  in  themselves,  and  every  thing  that 
may  give  countenance  thereunto;  betaking  themselves  to 
the  grace  of  God  by  Christ  alone,  for  righteousness  and  salva- 
tion. This  God  designs  in  the  gospel,  1  Cor.  i.  29,  30,  31,  and 
herein  whatever  difficulties  we  may  meet  withal  in  the  expli- 
cation of  some  propositions  and  terms  that  belong  to  the  doc- 
trine of  justification,  about  which  men  have  various  concep- 
tions, I  doubt  not  of  the  internal  concurrent  suffrage  of  them 
who  know  any  thing  as  they  ought  of  God  and  themselves. 

Fifthly,  There  is  in  the  Scripture  represented  to  us  a  com- 
mutation between  Christ  and  believers,  as  to  sin  and  right- 
eousness, that  is  in  the  imputation  of  their  sins  to  him,  and 
of  his  righteousness  to  them.  In  the  improvement  and  ap- 
plication hereof  to  our  own  souls,  no  small  part  of  the  life 
and  exercise  of  faith  consists. 

This  was  taught  the  church  of  God  in  offering  of  the  scape 
goat.  "  And  Aaron  shall  lay  his  hands  on  the  head  of  the  live 
goat,  and  confess  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children  of 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION.  43 

Israel,  and  all  their  transgressions  in  all  their  sins,  putting  them 
on  the  head  of  the  goat;  and  the  goat  shall  bear  upon  him  all 
their  iniquities,"  Levit.  xvi.  21,  22.  Whether  this  goat  sent 
away  with  this  burthen  upon  him  did  live,  and  so  was  a  type 
of  the  life  of  Christ  in  his  resurrection  after  his  death,  or  whe- 
ther he  perished  in  the  wilderness,  being  cast  down  the  preci- 
pice of  a  rock  by  him  that  conveyed  him  away  as  the  Jews 
suppose;  it  is  generally  acknowledged,  that  what  was  done  to 
him  and  with  him,  was  only  a  representation  of  what  was  done 
really  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  Aaron  did  not  only 
confess  the  sins  of  the  people  over  the  goat,  but  he  also  put 
them  all  on  his  head,  ^•'j'lt'n  i^Nn  Sp  anxinji  "and  he  shall  give  them 
all  to  be  on  the  head  of  the  goat;"  in  answer  whereto  it  is 
said  that  he  bare  them  all  upon  him.  This  he  did  by  virtue  of 
the  divine  institution,  wherein  was  a  ratification  of  what  was 
done.  He  did  not  transfuse  sin  from  one  subject  into  another, 
but  transferred  the  guilt  of  it  from  one  to  another.  And  to 
evidence  this  translation  of  sin  from  the  people  to  the  sacri- 
fice, in  his  confession  he  put  and  fixed  both  his  hands  on  his 
head.  Thence  the  Jews  say,  that  all  Israel  was  made  as  inno- 
cent on  the  day  of  expiation  as  they  were  in  the  day  of  crea- 
tion;— from  ver.  30.  Wherein  they  came  short  of  perfection  or 
consummation  thereby  the  Apostle  declares,  Heb.  x.  But  this 
is  the  language  of  every  expiatory  sacrifice,  (7i/o</  in  ejus  caput 
sit;  let  the  guilt  be  on  him.  Hence  the  sacrifice  itself  was 
called  nxan  and  ^'^'^  sin  and  guilt,  Levit.  iv.  29.  vii.  2,  10.  17. 
And  therefore  where  there  was  an  uncertain  murder,  and  none 
could  be  found  that  was  liable  to  punishment  thereon,  that  guilt 
might  not  come  upon  the  land,  nor  the  sin  be  imputed  to  the 
whole  people,  an  heifer  was  to  be  slain  by  the  elders  of  the 
city  that  was  next  to  the  place  where  the  murder  was  com- 
mitted to  take  away  the  guilt  of  it,  Dent.  xxi.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7. 
But  whereas  this  was  only  a  moral  representation  of  the  pun- 
ishment due  to  guilt,  and  no  sacrifice,  the  guilty  person  being 
not  known;  those  who  slew  the  heifer  did  not  put  their  hands 
on  him,  so  to  transfer  their  own  guilt  to  him,  but  washed  their 
hands  over  him,  to  declare  their  personal  innocency.  By  these 
means,  as  in  all  other  expiatory  sacrifices,  did  God  instruct  the 
church  HI  the  transferring  of  the  guilt  of  sin,  to  him  who 
was  to  bear  all  their  iniquities,  with  their  discharge  and  justi- 
fication thereby. 

So  God  "  laid  on  Christ  the  iniquities  of  us  all,"  that  "  by 
his  stripes  we  might  be  healed,"  Isa.  liii.  5,  6.     Our  iniquity 


44  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

was  laid  on  him,  and  he  bare  it,  ver.  11,  and  through  his  bear- 
ing of  it,  we  are  freed  from  it.  His  stripes  are  our  heahng, 
our  sin  was  his,  imputed  to  him;  his  merit  is  ours,  imputed 
to  us.  "  He  was  made  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that 
we  might  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,"  2  Cor. 
V.  21.  This  is  that  commutation  I  mentioned.  He  was  made 
sin  for  us,  we  are  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him;  God 
not  imputing  sin  to  us,  ver.  19,  but  imputing  righteousness 
to  us,  doth  it  on  this  ground  alone,  that  he  was  "  made  sin 
for  us."  And  if  by  his  being  made  sin,  only  his  being  made  a 
sacrifice  for  sin  is  intended,  it  is  to  the  same  purpose.  For  the 
formal  reason  of  any  thing  being  made  an  expiatory  sacrifice, 
was  the  imputation  of  sin  to  it  by  divine  institution.  The 
same  is  expressed  by  the  same  Apostle,  Rom.  viii.  3,4.  "  God 
sent  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  con- 
demned sin  in  the  flesh,  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might 
be  fulfilled  in  us."  The  sin  was  made  his,  he  answered  for  it, 
and  the  righteousness  which  God  requires  by  the  law  is  made 
ours;  the  righteousness  of  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  us;  not  by  our 
doing  it,  but  by  his.  This  is  that  blessed  change  and  commu- 
tation wherein  alone  the  soul  of  a  convinced  sinner  can  find 
rest  and  peace.  So  he  hath  "  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of 
the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us,  that  the  blessing  of  faithful 
Abraham  might  come  upon  us,"  Gal.  iii.  13,  14.  The  curse  of 
the  law  contained  all  that  was  due  to  sin;  this  belonged  unto 
us.  But  it  was  transferred  on  him;  He  was  made  a  curse, 
whereof  his  hanging  on  a  tree  was  the  sign  and  token.  Hence 
he  is  said  to  "  bear  all  our  sins  in  his  own  body  upon  the  tree," 
1  Pet.  i.  24,  because  his  hangmg  on  the  tree  was  the  token  of 
his  bearing  the  curse.  For  he  that  is  hanged  on  a  tree  is  the 
curse  of  God,  Deut.  xxi.  23.  And  in  the  blessing  of  faithful 
Abraham,  all  righteousness  and  acceptation  with  God  is  in- 
cluded; for  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  imputed  to 
him  for  righteousness. 

But  because  some,  who  for  reasons  best  known  to  them- 
selves, do  take  all  occasions  to  except  against  my  writings, 
have  in  particular  raised  an  impertinent  clamour  about  some- 
what that  I  formerly  delivered  to  this  purpose,  I  shall  declare 
the  whole  of  my  judgment  herein,  in  the  words  of  some  of 
those  whom  they  can  pretend  no  quarrel  against  that  I  know 
of. 

The  excellent  words  of  Justin  Martyr  deserve  tlie  first 
place.    "  He  gave  his  Son  a  ransom  for  us;  the  Holy  for  trans- 


THE    DOCTRINE   OF   JUSTIFICATION.  45 

gressors;  tlie  innocent  for  the  nocent;  the  just  for  the  unjust; 
the  incorruptible  for  the  corrupt;  the  immortal  for  mortals. 
For  what  else  could  hide  or  cover  our  sins  but  his  righteous- 
ness? in  whom  else  could  we  wicked  and  ungodly  ones  be 
justified,  [or  esteemed  righteous,]  but  in  the  Son  of  God  alone? 
0  SWEET  COMMUTATION;  [or  change!]  0  unsearchable 
work  [or  curious  operation  !]  0  blessed  beneficence  exceeding 
all  expectation!  That  the  iniquity  of  many  should  be  hid  in 
one  just  one,  and  the  righteousness  of  one  should  justify  many 
transgressors."*  And  Gregory  Nyssen  speaks  to  the  same 
purpose.  "He  hath  transferred  unto  himself  the  filth  of  our 
sins,  and  communicated  unto  me  his  purity,  and  made  me  par- 
taker of  his  beauty."!  So  Augustine  also.  "  He  was  sin  that 
we  might  be  righteousness,  not  our  own  but  the  righteousness 
of  God,  not  in  ourselves  but  in  him.  As  he  was  sin  not  his 
own  but  ours  ;  not  in  himself  but  in  us."J  The  old  Latin  trans- 
lation rendering  those  words,  Psal.  xxii.  1.  tuns'  nai  Verba 
delictorum  ineorum;  he  thus  comments  on  the  place.  "  How, 
saith  he,  of  my  sins;  but  because  he  prayeth  for  our  sins ;  and 
hath  made  our  sins  to  be  his,  that  he  might  make  his  righteous- 
ness to  be  ours."§  io  frji  y-Kvx£La.i  ivta-kxayrn;  0  sweet  Commutation 
and  change!  And  Chrysostom  to  the  same  purpose;  on  those 
words  of  the  apostle,  "  That  we  might  be  made  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  in  him."||  "  What  word,  what  speech  is  this, 
what  mind  can   comprehend  or  express  it?  for  he  saith  he 

*  AtlTOC  TOV  iS'lOV  VICV  a.TrfS'QTO    XVTpOV  VTTip  itJUCeV,   TOV  aytCV   VTTifl  etVO/UCtV,    TOV    clKAKOV    ClTTip 

Taiv  naxft))',  TOV  S'lx.at.tov  vTrip  Tcev  a.J'ix.wv,  tov  A^^^pTov  v7np  rcev  6v>iTa>v.  ti  ystp  a}.ko  T«f 
a^apT;*c  «;Cta)V  xtTuvxfl/)  no-Xv-^at «  anncv  i'lK^.totniin-^  iv  Tivt  S'lucLiaj^nvAi  i'vut^ov  TOfc  av^^MOt/c 
M//a?  KdLt  a.(riQitQ  n  ev  juovai  Tie  hlu)  tou  diov;  ce  rn;  yKuzuag  ctwcLKKctyii^,  ce  t»c  5tv«|<;^v;a<rT(5u 
S)tjU.loupyid.;,  u>  Tcev  aTrpoa-S'oKii'Tcev  iuieyitricev;  «v*  ctvofAtx  ju.iv  TroKKm  iv  S',Ka.tai  ivt  )ievp(l>i, 
hKM^7vn  (Tj  hoc  TTCiKKcvi  dLvofAovQ  i'lKMcuTn.   Epist.  ad  Diognet. 

t  MsT£(9s/c  ydip  TTgOQ  Iautcv  tsv  t&'V  yijuu'v  a.y.ApTim  puTrov,  jurrctS'cDH.i  /uot  t«c  iAinou 
KctBapoTuro;'  Koivcuvov  fxi  tsi/  sat/Tou  Ku,KKotJc  a.7rigydLTa.fjLivoc.     Orat.  ii.  in  Cant. 

X  Ipse  peccatum  ut  nos  justitia,  nee  nostra  sed  Dei;  nee  in  nobis  sed  in  ipso, 
.«!icut  ipse  peccatum  non  suum  sed  nostrum,  nee  in  se  sed  in  nobis  constitutum. 
Enchirid.  ad  Laurent,  cap.  41. 

§  Quomodo  ergo  dicit,  delictorum  meorum?  nisi  quia  pro  delictis  nostris  ipse 
precatur;  et  delieta  nostra,  delicta  sua  fecit,  ut  justitiam  suam  nostram  justitiam 
faceret. 

II  Yloia;   TAvTo,  Xoyo;,  ttoio;  tolvta  TrxpAo'THTAi:   S'uvyia-iTo.i  v:vc;  tov  ya.g  cT/^a/cv,  <p>i(Tiv, 

iTTOIHiTiV  afAApTUikOV,  'tVA  TOUC  a/UHpTCeACj;  7rOI>l(rtt  i'tKO.tOVQ.  /Jt-CLKKOV  S'»  OvS'i  OVTU;  ilTTiV;   CLKKU.  a 

■TroKKce  /uii^ov  nv ,  ou  yctp  i^iv  i^nKiv,  ciaa'  a.uTm  txv  ttoiothtu.  cv  yap  imtv,  iTntnTiv  a/uupTO)- 

KOV,  etAK*  a/UApTtCtV^  CU^l  tov  jUiV  IX/xapT-XVOVTa.  [XOVOVi  a>.K<t  tov  fJI-^^Si  yVOVTO.  Q.fJl.i.pTl:tV.  IV'JL 
KtU  tIJUilC  yiVlD/UiSsi,  OUK  Um,  S^IKXlOt,  dLKK<t  SlKMOO-UVH,  KUl  SiOV  JmoLIOO-UVH.    biOV  yttp  iTTlV  oilTH, 

OTitv  juii  t^  igym  (oTW  km  x,hKiJa  a.va.yiin  Tiva  /un  iupit^wAt)  clkk^  cltto  yjtpiTOC  S'iK:tiiic^a:fj.iv,, 
£v9a  TTitra  a^wa^T/rf^  i<^:tvtTTaj.  In  2  Epist.  ad  Corintii.  cap.  v.  Horn.  H. 


46 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 


made  him  who  was  righteous  to  be  made  a  sinner,  that  he 
might  make  sinners  righteous;  nor  yet  doth  he  say  so  merely, 
but  that  which  is  far  more  subhme  and  excellent.  For  he 
speaks  not  of  an  inclination  or  affection,  but  expresseth  the 
quality  itself.  For  he  says  not,  he  m.ade  him  a  sinner,  but  sin, 
that  we  might  be  made  not  merely  righteous  but  righteousness, 
and  that,  the  righteousness  of  God,  when  we  are  justified  not 
by  works,  (for  if  we  should,  there  must  be  no  spot  found 
in  them)  but  by  grace,  whereby  all  sin  is  blotted  out.  So 
Bernard  also  Epist.  190,  ad  Innocent,  "It  was  man  who 
owed  the  debt,  it  was  man  who  paid  it.  For,  he  says,  'if 
one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead ;'  to  wit,  that  the  satisfac- 
tion of  one  might  be  imputed  to  all,  as  he  alone  bore  the  sins 
of  all.  Nor  can  it  now  be  found  that  one  has  sinned,  and  an- 
other made  satisfaction;  because  Christ  alone  is  the  head  and 
body."*  And  many  more  speak  to  the  same  purpose.  Hence 
Luther  before  he  engaged  in  the  work  of  reformation,  in  an 
epistle  to  one  George  Spenlein,amonk,  was  not  afraid  to  write 
after  this  manner ;  "  My  dear  brother,  learn  Christ  and  him 
crucified;  learn  to  sing  to  him,  and  despairing  of  yourself,  to 
say  to  him,  'Thou,  Lord  Jesus,  art  my  righteousness,  but  I 
am  thy  sin ;  thou  hast  assumed  what  was  mine,  and  given  me 
what  was  thine;  thou  hast  assumed  what  thou  wast  not, and 
given  to  me  what  I  was  not.'  He  has  undertaken  for  thee, 
and  made  thy  sins  his  own,  and  his  righteousness,  thine; 
cursed  is  he  who  believeth  not  this."t 

If  those  who  show  themselves  now  so  quarrelsome  almost 
about  every  word  that  is  spoken  concerning  Christ  and  his 
righteousness,  had  ever  been  harassed  in  their  consciences 
about  the  guilt  of  sin,  as  this  man  was,  they  would  think  it 
no  strange  matter  to  speak  and  write  as  he  did.  Yea  some 
there  are  who  have  lived  and  died  in  the  communion  of  the 
church  of  Rome  itself  that  have  given  their  testimony  to  this 

*  Homo  qui  dcbuit,  homo  qui  solvit.  Nam  si  unus,  inquit,  pro  omnibus  mor- 
tuus  est,  ergo  omnes  mortui  sunt;  ut  videlicet  satisfactio  unius  omnibus  impute- 
tur,  sicut  omnium  peccata  unus  ille  portavit.  Nee  alter  jam  inveniatur  qui  foras 
fecit,  alter  qui  satisfecit;  quia  caput  et  corpus  unus  est  Christus. 

t  Mi  dulcis  frater,  disce  Christum  et  hunc  crucifixum,  disce  ei  cantare,  et  de 
teipso  desperans  dicere  ei;  Tu  Domine  Jesu  es  justitia  mea,  ego  autem  sum  pec- 
catum  tuum;  tu  assumpsisti  meum,  et  dedisti  mihi  tuum,  assumpsisti  quod  non 
eras,  et  dedisti  mihi  quod  non  eram.  Ipse  suscepit  te  et  peccata  tua  fecit  sua, 
et  suam  justitiam  fecit  tuam;  maledictus  qui  hffic  non  credit.  Epist.  An.  1516. 
Tom.  i. 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF  JUSTIFICATION.  47 

truth.  So  speaks  Taulerus;  Meditat.  vitse  Christ,  cap.  7.* 
"  Christ  took  upon  him  all  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  wil- 
lingly underwent  such  grief  of  heart  for  them,  as  if  he  himself 
had  committed  them."  And  again  speaking  in  the  person  of 
Christ.t  "  Whereas  the  great  sin  of  Adam  cannot  go  away, 
I  beseech  thee  heavenly  Father  punish  it  in  me.  For  I  take  all 
his  sins  upon  myself  If  then  this  tempest  of  anger  be  risen 
for  me,  cast  me  into  the  sea  of  my  most  bitter  passion."  See 
in  the  justification  of  these  expressions,  Heb.  x.  5,  6,  7,  8,  9, 
10.  The  discourse  of  Albertus  Pighius  to  this  purpose,  th'ough 
often  cited  and  urged,  shall  be  once  again  repeated,  both  for 
its  worth  and  truth,  as  also  to  let  some  men  see  how  fondly 
they  have  pleased  themselves  in  reflecting  on  some  expressions 
of  mine,  as  though  I  had  been  singular  in  them.  His  words  are, 
after  others  to  the  same  purpose:  "  God  was  in  Christ,  saith  the 
Apostle,  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself;  not  imputing  unto 
men  their  sins.  In  him,  therefore,  we  are  justified  before  God, 
not  in  ourselves,  not  by  our  own,  but  by  his  righteousness, 
which  is  imputed  unto  us  now  communicating  with  him. 
Wanting  righteousness  of  our  own,  we  are  taught  to  seek  for 
righteousness  without  ourselves  in  him.  So  he  saith,  '  him  who 
knew  not  sin,  he  made  to  be  sin  for  us,'  that  is; an  expiatory  sa- 
crifice for  sin, '  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God 
in  him;'  we  are  made  righteous  in  Christ  not  with  our  own  but 
with  the  righteousness  of  God.  By  what  right?  the  right  of 
friendship,  which  makes  all  common  among  friends,  accord- 
ing to  the  ancient  celebrated  proverb.  Being  ingrafted  into 
Christ,  fastened,  united  to  him,  he  makes  his  things  ours, 
communicates  his  riches  to  us,  interposes  his  righteousness 
between  the  judgment  of  God  and  our  unrighteousness,  and 
under  that,  as  under  a  shield  and  buckler,  he  hides  us  from  that 
divine  wrath  which  we  have  deserved ;  he  defends  and  pro- 
tects us  therewith,  yea  he  communicates  it  to  us,  and  makes 
it  ours,  so  as  that  being  covered  and  adorned  therewith,  we  may 
boldly  and  securely  place  ourselves  before  the  divine  tribunal 
and  judgment,  so  as  not  only  to  appear  righteous,  but  so  to  be. 
For  even  as  the  Apostle  affirms,  that  by  one  man's  fault  we 
were  all  made  sinners,  so  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone, 

*  Christus  omnia  mundi  peccata  in  se  recepit,  tantumque  pro  illis  ultro  sibi 
assumpsit  dolorem  cordis  ac  si  ipse  ea  perpetrasset. 

t  Quandoquidem  peccatum  Adts  niultum  abire  non  potest,  obsecro  te  pater 
coeiestis,  ut  ipsum  in  me  vindices.  Ego  eiiim  omnia  illius  peccata  in  me  recipio. 
Si  hsec  irae  tempestas,  propter  me  orta  est,  mitte  me  in  mare  amarissimae  passionis. 


48 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


efficacious  in  the  justification  of  us  all;  and  ^as  by  the  disobedi- 
ence of  one  man  many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience 
of  one  man  (saith  he)  many  are  made  righteous.'  This  is  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  even  his  obedience,  whereby  in  all 
things  he  fulfilled  the  will  of  his  Father.  As  on  the  other  hand 
our  unrighteousness  is  our  disobedience,  and  our  transgression 
of  the  commands  of  God.  But  that  our  righteousness  is  placed 
in  the  obedience  of  Christ,  it  is  from  hence,  that  we  being  in- 
corporated into  him,  it  is  accounted  unto  us  as  if  it  were  ours; 
so  as  that  therewith  we  are  esteemed  righteous.  And  as  Jacob 
of  old,  whereas  he  was  not  the  first  born,  being  hid  under  the 
habit  of  his  brother,  and  clothed  with  his  garment  which 
breathed  a  sweet  savour,  presented  himself  to  his  father,  that 
in  the  person  of  another,  he  might  receive  the  blessing  of  the 
primogeniture;  so  is  it  necessary  that  we  should  he  hid  under 
the  precious  purity  of  the  first  born,  our  eldest  brother,  be  fra- 
grant with  his  sweet  savour,  and  have  our  sin  buried  and  co- 
vered with  his  perfection,  that  we  may  present  ourselves  before 
our  most  Holy  Father,  to  obtain  from  him  the  blessing  of  right- 
eousness," And  again;  "  God  therefore  doth  justify  us  by  his 
free  grace  or  goodness  wherewith  he  embraces  us  in  Christ  Jesus, 
when  he  clothes  us  with  his  innocency  and  righteousness  as  we 
are  ingrafted  into  him;  for  as  that  alone  is  true  and  perfect 
which  only  can  endure  in  the  sight  of  God,  so  that  alone  ought 
to  be  presented  and  pleaded  for  us  before  the  divine  tribunal, 
as  the  advocate  of,  or  plea  in  our  cause;  resting  hereon,  we 
here  obtain  the  daily  pardon  of  sin;  with  whose  purity  being 
covered,  our  filth  and  the  uncleanness  of  our  imperfections  are 
not  imputed  to  us,  but  are  covered  as  if  they  were  buried, 
that  they  may  not  come  into  the  judgment  of  God;  until  the 
old  man  being  destroyed  and  slain  in  us,  divine  goodness  re- 
ceives us  into  peace  with  the  second  Adam."*     So  far  he;  ex- 

*Quoniam  quidcm  (inquit  Ai)ostoIus)  Deus  erat  in  Christo,  mundum  reconcili- 
ans  sibi,  non  imputans  hoininibus  sua  delicta;  et  deposuit  apud  nos  verbuin  re- 
conciliationis.  In  ilia  ergo  justificamur  coram  Deo,  non  in  nobis ;  non  nostra  sed 
illius  justitia,  quiB  nobis  cum  illo  jam  communicantibus  imputatur.  ProprifB  jus- 
titicB  inopes,  extra  nos,  iu  illo  doccmur  justitiam  quterere.  Cum,  inquit,  qui  pec- 
catum  non  noverat,  pro  nobis  pcccatum  fecit;  lioc  est,  hostiam  peccati  expiatri- 
eeni,  ut  nos  efficeremur  justitia  Dei  in  ipso,  non  nostra,  sed  Dei  justitia  justi  effici- 
mur  in  Christo;  quo  jure  ?  AmicitiiB,  quae  coinmunioncm  omnium  inter  amicos 
facit,  juxta  vetus  et  celebratissimum  proverbium;  Christo  insertis,  conglutinatis 
et  unitis  et  sua  nostra  facit,  suas  divitias  nobis  communicat,  suam  justitiam  inter 
Patris  judicium  et  nostram  injustitiam  interponlt,  et  sub  ea  veluti  sub  umbone  ac 
clypeo  a  divina  quam  commeruimus,  ira  nos  abscondit,  tuetur  ac  protegit,  imo  ean- 
dem  nobis  impertit  et  nostram  facit,  qua  tecti  ornatiquc  audacter  et  secure  jam  di- 


THE   DOCTRINE    OP    JUSTIFICATION.  49. 

pressing  the  power  which  the  influence  of  divine  truth  had  on 
his  mind,  contrary  to  the  interest  of  the  cause  wherein  he  was 
engaged,  and  the  loss  of  his  reputation  with  them,  for  whom 
in  all  other  things,  he  was  one  of  the  fiercest  champions.  And 
some  among  the  Roman  Church,  who  cannot  bear  this  asser- 
tion of  the  commutation  of  sin  and  righteousness  by  imputation 
between  Christ  and  believers,  no  more  than  some  among  our- 
selves, do  yet  affirm  the  same  concerning  the  righteousness  of 
other  men.  "  Paul  seems  to  instruct  us  in  a  kind  of  merchan- 
dise. He  says,  You  abound  in  money  and  are  destitute  of 
righteousness;  on  the  contrary,  they  abound  in  righteousness 
and  are  in  want  of  money.  Let  an  exchange  be  made.  Give 
to  the  pious  poor  the  money  which  you  have  in  abundance 
and  they  need;  so  they  in  return  will  communicate  to  you  their 
righteousness  in  which  they  abound,  and  of  which  you  are 
destitute."*  But  I  have  mentioned  these  testimonies  princi- 
pally-to  be  a  relief  to  some  men's  ignorance,  who  are  ready  to 
speak  evil  of  what  they  understand  not. 

vino  nos  sistamus  tribunal!  et  judicio :  justique  non  solum  appareamus,  sed  etiam 
simus.  Quemadmodum  enim  unius  delicto  pcccatores  nos  etiam  factos  affirmat 
Apostolus  :  ita  unius  Christijustitiam  in  justificandis  nobis  omnibus  efficacem  esse; 
Et  sicut  per  inobedientiam  unius  liominis  peceatores  constituti  sunt  multi,  sic  per 
obedientiam  unius  justi  (inquit)  constituentur  multi.  Hoec  est  Christi  justitia,  ejus 
obedientia,  qua  voluntatem  Patris  sui  perfecit  in  omnibus;  sicut  contra,  nostra in- 
justitia  est  nostra  inobedientia,  et  mandatorum  Dei  praevaricatio.  In  Christi  autem 
obedientia  quod  nostra  collocatur  justitia  inde  est,  quod  nobis  illi  incorporatis,  ac 
si  nostra  esset,  accepta  ea  fertur  :  ut  ea  ipsa  etiam  nos  justi  habeamur.  Et  velut 
ille  quondam  Jacob,  quum  nativitate  primogenitus  non  esset,  sub  habitu  fratris  oc- 
cultatus,  atque  ejus  vcste  indutus,  quas  odorem  optimum  spirabat,  seipsum  insimia- 
vit  Patri,  ut  sub  aliena  persona  benedictionem  primogeniturse  acciperet :  Ita  et 
nos  sub  Christi  primogeniti  fratris  nostri  preciosa  puritate  delitescere,  bono  ejus 
odore  fragrare,  ejus  pcrfectione  vitia  nostra  sepeliri  et  obtegi,  atque  ita  nos  piissi- 
mo  Patri  ingerere,  ut  justitise  benedictionem  ab  eodem  assequamur,  necesse  est. 
And  afterwards.  Justificat  ergo  nos  Deus  Pater  bonitate  sua  gratuita,  qua  nos  in 
Christo  complectitur,  dum  eidem  insertos  innocentia  et  justitia  Christi  nos  induit; 
quEe  una  ut  vera  et  perfecta  est  quee  Dei  sustinere  conspectum  potest,  ita  unum 
pro  nobis  sisti  oportet  tribunali  divini  judicii  et  veluti  causEe  nostrce  intercessorem 
eidem  repraesentari :  qua  subnisi  etiam  hie  obtineremus  remissionem  peccatorum 
nostrorum  assiduam:  cujus  puritate  velatce  non  imputantur  nobis  sordes  nostras; 
imperfectionum  immunditiae,  sed  veluti  sepultfE  conteguntur,  ne  in  judicium  Dei 
veniant :  donee  confecto  in  nobis,  et  plane  extincto  veteri  homine,  divina  bonitas 
nos  in  beatam  pacem  cum  novo  Adam  recipiat. 

*  Mercaturam  quandam  docere  nos  Paulus  videtur.  Abundatis,  inquit,  vos  pe- 
cunia  et  estis  inopes  justitias  ;  contra  illi  abundant  justitia,  et  sunt  inopes  pecuniae; 
iial  quffidam  commutatio;  date  vos  piis  egentibus  pecnniam  quae  vobis  affluit,  et 
illis  deficit;  sic  futurum  est  ut  illi  vicissim  justitiam  suam  qua  abundant,  et  qua 
vos  estis  destituti,  vobis  communicent.  Ilosius;  de  expresso  Dei  verbo,  torn.  ii. 
pag.  21. 


50  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

This  blessed  permiuatioii  as  to  sin  and  righteousness,  is 
represented  to  us  in  the  Scripture  as  a  principal  object  of  our 
faith;  as  that  whereon  our  peace  with  God  is  founded.  And 
although  both  these,  the  imputation  of  sin  to  Christ,  and  the 
imputation  of  righteousness  to  us,  be  the  acts  of  God  and  not 
ours,  yet  are  we  by  faith  to  exemplify  them  in  our  own  souls, 
and  really  to  perform  what  on  our  part  is  required  to  their  ap- 
plication to  us,  whereby  we  receive  the  atonement,  Rom.  v. 
11.  Christ  calls  to  him  all  those  that  are  "  weary  and  heavy 
laden,"  Matt.  xi.  28.  The  weight  that  is  upon  the  consciences 
of  men  wherewith  they  are  laden,  is  the  burden  of  sin.  So  the 
Psalmist  complains  that  his  sins  were  a  burden  too  heavy  for 
him.  Psalm  xxxviii.  4.  Such  was  Cain's  apprehension  of  his 
guilt,  Gen.  iv.  13.  This  burden  Christ  bore  when  it  was  laid 
on  him  by  divine  estimation.  For  so  it  is  said  S3d>  j^^m  anjin 
Isa.  liii.  11.  "He  shall  bear  their  sins''  on  him  as  a  burden. 
And  this  he  did  when  God  "  made  to  meet  upon  him  the  iniquity 
of  us  all,"  ver.  6.  In  the  application  of  this  to  our  own  souls, 
as  it  is  required  that  we  be  sensible  of  the  weight  and  burden 
of  our  sins,  and  how  it  is  heavier  than  we  can  bear,  so  the 
Lord  Christ  calls  us  to  him  with  it,  that  we  may  be  eased. 
This  he  doth  in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  wherein  he  is 
evidently  crucified  before  our  eyes,  Gal.  iii.  1.  In  the  view 
which  faith  hath  of  Christ  crucified,  (for  faith  is  a  looking  to 
him,  Isa.  xlv.  22,  chap.  Ixv.  1,  answering  to  their  looking  to  the 
brazen  serpent  who  were  stung  with  fiery  serpents,  John  iii. 
14,  15,)  and  under  a  sense  of  his  invitation,  (for  faith  is  our 
coming  to  him  upon  his  call  and  invitation)  to  come  to  him 
with  our  burdens,  a  believer  considers  that  God  has  laid  all 
our  iniquities  upon  him,  yea  that  he  has  done  so,  is  an  espe- 
cial object  whereon  faith  is  to  act  itself,  which  is  faith  in  his 
blood.  Hereon  doth  the  soul  approve  of,  and  embrace  the 
righteousness  and  grace  of  God,  with  the  infinite  condescension 
and  love  of  Christ  himself.  It  gives  its  consent  that  what  is 
thus  done,  is  what  becomes  the  infinite  wisdom  and  grace  of 
God,  and  therein  it  rests.  Such  a  person  seeks  no  more  to  es- 
tablish his  own  righteousness,  but  submits  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  God.  Herein  by  faith  doth  he  leave  that  burden  on 
Christ,  which  he  called  him  to  bring  with  him,  and  complies 
with  the  wisdom  and  righteousness  of  God  in  laying  it  upon 
him.  And  herewithal  doth  he  receive  the  everlasting  right- 
eousness, which  the  Lord  Christ  brought  in  when  he  made  an 
end  of  sin,  and  reconciliation  for  transgressors. 


THE    DOCTUINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION.  51 

The  reader  may  be  pleased  to  observe,  that  I  am  not  debat- 
ing these  things  argumentatively  in  such  propriety  of  expres- 
sions as  is  required  in  a  scholastical  disputation,  which  shall  be 
done  afterwards  so  far  as  I  judge  it  necessary.  But  I  am  doing 
that  which  indeed  is  better  and  of  more  importance;  namely, 
declaring  the  experience  of  faith  in  the  expressions  of  the 
Scripture,  or  such  as  are  analogous  to  them.  And  I  had  rather\ 
be  instrumental  in  the  communication  of  light  and  knowledge  ) 
to  the  meanest  believer,  than  to  have  the  clearest  success 
against  prejudiced  disputers.  Wherefore  by  faith  thus  acting 
are  we  justified  and  have  peace  with  God.  Other  foundation 
in  this  matter  can  no  man  lay  that  will  endure  the  trial. 

Nor  are  we  to  be  moved  that  men  who  are  unacquainted 
with  these  things  in  their  reality  and  power,  do  reject  the 
whole  work  of  faith  herein,  as  an  easy  effort  of  fancy  or  imagi- 
nation. For  the  preaching  of  the  cross  is  foolishness  to  the 
best  of  the  natural  wisdom  of  men.  Neither  can  any  under- 
stand them  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Those  who  know  the 
terror  of  the  Lord,  who  have  been  really  convinced  and  made 
sensible  of  the  guilt  of  their  apostasy  from  God,  and  of  their 
actual  sins  in  that  state,  and  what  a  fearful  thing  it  is  to  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  living  God,  seeking  thereon  after  a  real 
solid  foundation  whereon  they  may  be  accepted  with  him, 
have  other  thoughts  of  these  things,  and  find  believing  to  be 
a  thing  quite  of  another  nature  than  such  men  suppose.  It 
is  not  a  work  of  fancy  or  imagination  to  men  to  deny  and 
abhor  themselves,  to  subscribe  to  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
denouncing  death  as  due  to  their  sins,  to  renounce  all  hopes  and 
expectations  of  relief  from  any  righteousness  of  their  own,  to 
mix  the  word  and  promise  of  God  concerning  Christ  and  right- 
eousness by  him  with  faith,  so  as  to  receive  the  atonement,  and 
therewithal  to  give  up  themselves  to  an  universal  obedience  to 
God.  And  as  for  them  to  whom  through  pride  and  self-conceit 
on  the  one  hand,  or  ignorance  on  the  other,  it  is  so;  we  have 
in  this  matter  no  concernment  with  them.  For  to  whom  these 
things  are  only  the  work  of  fancy,  the  gospel  is  a  fable. 

Something  to  this  purpose  I  had  written  long  since  in  a  prac- 
tical discourse  concerning  communion  with  God.  And  whereas 
some  men  of  an  inferior  condition,  have  found  it  useful  for  the 
strengthening  themselves  in  their  dependences  on  some  of  their 
superiors,  or  in  compliance  with  their  own  inclination,  to  cavil 
at  my  writings  and  revile  their  author;  that  book  has  been 
principally  singled  out  to  exercise  their  faculty  and  good  inten- 


52  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

tions  upon.  This  course  is  steered  of  late  by  one  Mr.  Hotch- 
kisse,  in  a  book  about  justification,  wherein  in  particular  he 
falls  very  severely  on  that  doctrine  which  for  the  substance  of 
it,  is  here  again  proposed.  And  were  it  not  that  I  hope  it  may 
be  somewhat  useful  to  him  to  be  a  little  warned  of  his  immor- 
alities in  that  discourse,  I  should  not  in  the  least  have  taken 
notice  of  his  other  impertinences.  The  good  man,  I  perceive, 
can  be  angry  with  persons  whom  he  never  saw,  and  about 
things  which  he  cannot  or  will  not  understand,  so  far  as  to  re- 
vile them  with  most  opprobrious  language.  For  my  part, 
although  I  have  never  written  any  thing  designedly  on  this 
subject,  or  the  doctrine  of  justification  before  now;  yet  he 
could  not  but  discern  by  what  was  occasionally  delivered  in 
that  discourse,  that  I  maintain  no  other  doctrine  herein,  but  what 
is  the  common  faith  of  the  most  learned  men  in  all  Protestant 
churches.  And  the  reasons  why  I  am  singled  out  for  the  ob- 
ject of  his  petulancy  and  spleen,  are  too  manifest  to  need  repe- 
tition. But  I  shall  yet  inform  him  of  what  perhaps  he  is  igno- 
rant; namely,  that  I  esteem  it  no  small  honour  that  the  re- 
proaches wherewith  the  doctrine  opposed  by  him  is  reproached, 
fall  upon  me.  And  the  same  I  say  concerning  all  the  reviling 
and  contemptuous  expressions  that  his  ensuing  pages  are  filled 
with.  But  as  to  the  present  occasion  I  beg  his  excuse  if  I  be- 
lieve him  not,  that  the  reading  of  the  passages  which  he  men- 
tions out  of  my  book,  filled  him  "  with  horror  and  indignation," 
as  he  pretends.  For  whereas  he  acknowledges  that  my  words 
may  have  a  sense  which  he  approves  of  (and  which  therefore 
must  of  necessity  be  good  and  sound)  what  honest  and  sober 
person  would  not  rather  take  them  in  that  sense,  than  wrest 
them  to  another,  so  to  cast  himself  under  the  disquietment  of 
a  fit  of  horrible  indignation.  In  this  fit  I  suppose  it  was,  if 
such  a  fit  indeed  did  befall  him  (as  one  evil  begets  another) 
that  he  thought  he  might  insinuate  something  of  my  denial  of 
"  the  necessity  of  our  own  personal  repentance  and  obedience." 
For  no  man  who  had  read  that  book  only  of  all  my  writings, 
could  with  the  least  regard  to  conscience  or  honesty  give  coun- 
tenance to  such  a  surmise,  unless  his  mind  was  much  discom- 
posed by  the  unexpected  invasion  of  a  fit  of  horror.  But  such 
is  his  dealing  with  me  from  first  to  last,  nor  do  I  know  where 
to  fix  on  any  one  instance  of  his  exceptions  against  me,  wherein 
I  can  suppose  he  had  escaped  his  pretended  fit,  and  was  re- 
turned to  himself,  that  is  to  honest  and  ingenuous  thoughts, 
wherewith  I  hope  he  is  mostly  conversant.  But  though  I  cannot 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION,  53 

miss  in  the  justification  of  this  charge  by  considering  any  in- 
stance of  his  reflections,  yet  I  shall  at  present  take  that  which 
he  insists  longest  upon,  and  fills  his  discourse  about  it  witli  most 
scurrility  of  expressions.  And  this  is  in  the  164th  page  of  his 
book  and  those  that  follow.  For  there  he  disputes  fiercely 
against  me  for  making  this  to  be  an  undue  end  of  our  serving 
God,  namely,  that  we  may  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come.  And 
who  would  not  take  this  for  an  inexpiable  crime  in  any,  espe- 
cially in  him  who  has  written  so  much  of  the  nature  and  use 
of  threatenings  under  the  gospel,  and  the  fear  that  ought  to  be 
ingenerated  by  them  in  the  hearts  of  men,  as  I  have  done? 
Wherefore  so  great  a  crime  being  the  object  of  them,  all  hisre- 
vilings  seem  not  only  to  be  excused  but  hallowed.  But  what 
if  all  this  should  prove  a  wilful  prevarication,  not  becoming  a 
good  man,  much  less  a  minister  of  the  gospel!  My  words  as 
reported  and  transcribed  by  himself  are  these:  "some  there  are 
that  do  the  service  of  the  house  of  God  as  the  drudgery  of  their 
lives;  the  principle  they  yield  obedience  upon  is  a  spirit  of 
bondage  unto  fear;  the  rule  they  do  it  by  is  the  law  in  its  dread 
and  rigour,  exacting  it  of  them  to  the  utmost  without  mercy 
or  mitigation;  the  end  they  do  it  for  is  tp-fly  from  the  wrath 
to  come,  to  pacify  conscience,  and  to  seek  for  righteousness  as 
it  were  by  the  works  of  the  law."  What  follows  to  the  same 
purpose  he  omits,  and  what  he  adds  as  my  words  are  not  so, 
but  his  own.  Ubi piidor,  iiui  fides?  That  which  I  affirmed 
to  be  a  part  of  an  evil  end  when  and  as  it  makes  up  one  entire 
end  by  being  mixed  with  sundry  other  things  expressly  men- 
tioned, is  singled  out,  as  if  I  had  denied  that  in  any  sense  it 
might  be  a  part  of  a  good  end  in  our  obedience,  which  I  never 
thought,  I  never  said,  I  have  spoken  and  written  much  to  the 
contrary.  And  yet  to  countenance  himself  in  this  disingenu- 
ous procedure,  besides  many  other  untrue  reflections,  he  adds 
that  I  insinuate,  that  those  whom  I  describe,  are  Christians  that 
seek  righteousness  by  faith  in  Christ.  I  must  needs  tell  this 
author  that  my  faith  in  this  matter  is,  that  such  works  as  these 
will  have  no  influence  in  his  justification;  and  that  the  princi- 
pal reason  why  I  suppose  I  shall  not  in  my  progress  in  this 
discourse  take  any  particular  notice  of  his  exceptions  either 
against  the  truth  or  me,  next  to  this  consideration,  that  they 
are  all  trite  and  obsolete,  and  as  to  what  seems  to  be  of  any 
force  in  them  will  occur  to  me  in  other  authors  from  whom 
they  are  derived,  is  that  I  may  not  have  a  continual  occasion 
to  declare  how  forgetful  he  has  been  of  all  the  rules  of  ingenu- 

5* 


54  THE    DOCTBINE    OF   JPSTIFICATION. 

ousness,  yea  and  of  common  honesty  in  his  deaUng  with  me. 
For  that  which  gave  the  occasion  to  this  present  unpleasing 
digression,  it  being  no  more  as  to  the  substance  of  it,  but  that 
our  sins  were  imputed  unto  Christ,  and  that  his  righteousness 
is  imputed  unto  us,  is  that,  in  the  faith  whereof  I  am  assured 
I  shall  hve  and  die,  though  he  should  write  twenty  as  learned 
books  against  it,  as  those  which  he  has  already  published;  and 
in  what  sense  I  believe  these  things,  shall  be  afterwards  de- 
clared. And  although  I  judge  no  men  upon  the  expressions 
that  fall  from  them  in  polemical  writings,  wherein  on  many 
occasions  they  affront  their  own  experience,  and  contradict 
their  own  prayers,  yet  as  to  those  who  understand  not  that 
blessed  commutation  of  sins  and  righteousness  as  to  the  sub- 
stance of  it,  which  I  have  pleaded  for,  and  the  actings  of  our 
faith  with  respect  thereto,  I  shall  be  bold  to  say,  that  "if  the 
gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  that  perish." 

Sixthly,  We  can  never  state  our  thoughts  aright  in  this  mat- 
ter, unless  we  have  a  clear  apprehension  of,  and  satisfaction  in 
the  introduction  of  grace  by  Jesus  Christ  into  the  whole  of  our 
relation  to  God,  with  its  respect  to  all  parts  of  our  obedience. 
There  was  no  such  thing,  nothing  of  that  nature  or  kind,  in  the 
first  constitution  of  that  relation  and  obedience  by  the  law  of 
our  creation.  We  were  made  in  a  state  of  immediate  relation 
to  God  in  our  own  persons,  as  our  creator,  preserver  and  re- 
warder.  There  was  no  mystery  of  grace  in  the  covenant  of 
works.  No  more  was  required  to  the  consummation  of  that 
state,  but  what  was  given  us  in  our  creation,  enabling  us  to 
render  rewardable  obedience.  "  Do  this  and  live,"  was  the 
sole  rule  of  our  relation  to  God.  There  was  nothing  in  reli- 
gion originally  of  that  which  the  gospel  celebrates  under  the 
name  of  the  grace,  kindness  and  love  of  God,  whence  all  our 
favourable  relation  to  God  now  proceeds,  and  whereinto  it  is 
resolved;  nothing  of  the  interposition  of  a  mediator  with  re- 
spect to  our  righteousness  before  God  and  acceptance  with  him, 
which  is  at  present  the  life  and  soul  of  religion,  the  substance 
o{  the  gospel,  and  the  centre  of  all  the  truths  revealed  in  it. 
The  introduction  of  these  things  is  that  which  makes  our  reli- 
gion a  mystery,  yea,  a  great  mystery,  if  the  Apostle  may  be 
believed,  1  Tmi.  iii.  16.  All  religion  at  first  was  suited  and 
commensurable  to  reason;  but  being  now  become  a  mystery, 
men  for  the  most  part  are  very  unwilling  to  receive  it.  But 
so  it  must  be;  and  unless  we  are  restored  to  our  primitive  rec- 
titude, a  religion  suited  to  the  principles  of  our  reason,  which 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION.  55 

it  has  none  but  what  answer  that  first  state,  will  not  serve  our 
turns. 

Wherefore  of  this  introduction  of  Christ  and  grace  in  him 
into  our  relation  to  God,  there  are  no  notions  in  the  natural 
conceptions  of  our  minds,  nor  are  they  discoverable  by  reason 
in  the  best  and  utmost  of  its  exercise,  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  For  before 
our  understandings  were  darkened,  and  our  reason  debased  by 
the  fall,  there  were  no  such  things  revealed  or  proposed  to  us; 
yea,  the  supposition  of  them  is  inconsistent  with,  and  contra- 
dictory to,  that  whole  state  and  condition  wherein  we  were  to 
Uve  to  God;  seeing  they  all  suppose  the  entrance  of  sin.  And 
it  is  not  likely  that  our  reason  as  now  corrupted,  should  be 
willing  to  embrace  that  which  it  knew  nothing  of  in  its  best 
condition,  and  which  was  inconsistent  with  that  way  of  attain- 
ing happiness  which  was  absolutely  suited  to  it.  For  it  has 
no  faculty  or  power  but  what  it  has  derived  from  that  state. 
And  to  suppose  it  is  now  of  itself  suited  and  ready  to  embrace 
such  heavenly  mysteries  of  truth  and  grace,  as  it  had  no  notions 
of,  nor  could  have,  in  the  state  of  mnocency,  is  to  suppose  that 
by  the  fall  our  eyes  were  "  opened  to  ktiow  good  and  evil,"  in 
the  sense  that  the  serpent  deceived  our  first  parents  with  an 
expectation  of.  Whereas,  therefore,  our  reason  was  given  us 
for  our  only  guide  in  the  first  constitution  of  our  natures,  it  is 
naturally  unready  to  receive  what  is  above  it,  and,  as  corrupt- 
ed, has  an  enmity  thereto. 

Hence  in  the  first  open  proposal  of  this  mystery,  namely,  of 
the  love  and  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  of  the  introduction  of  a 
mediator  and  his  righteousness  into  our  relation  to  God,  in  that 
way  which  God  in  infinite  wisdom  had  designed;  the  whole 
of  it  was  looked  on  as  mere  folly  by  the  generality  of  the  wise 
and  rational  men  of  the  world,  as  the  Apostle  declares  at  large, 
1  Cor.  ch.  i.  Neither  was  the  faith  of  them  ever  really  received 
in  the  world,  without  an  act  of  the  Holy  Gliost  iipon  the  mind 
in  its  renovation.  And  those  who  judge  that  there  is  nothing 
more  needful  to  enable  the  mind  of  man  to  receive  the  myste- 
ries of  the  gospel  in  a  due  manner,  but  the  outward  proposal 
of  the  doctrine  thereof,  do  not  only  deny  the  depravity  of  our 
nature  by  the  fall,  but,  by  just  consequence,  wholly  renounce 
that  grace  whereby  we  are  to  be  recovered.  Wherefore  rea- 
son (as  has  been  elsewhere  proved)  acting  on  and  by  its  own 
innate  principles  and  abilities,  conveyed  to  it  from  its  original 
state,  and  as  now  corrupted,  is  repugng-ut  to  the  whole  intro- 
duction of  grace  by  Christ  into  our  relation  to  God,  Rom.  viii. 


56  THE   DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

7.  An  endeavour,  therefore,  to  reduce  the  doctrine  of  the 
gospel,  or  what  is  declared  therein,  concerning  the  hidden 
mystery  of  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  to  the  principles  and  in- 
clinations of  the  minds  of  men,  or  to  reason  as  it  remains  in  us 
after  the  entrance  of  sin,  under  the  power  at  least  of  those  no- 
tions and  conceptions  of  things  religious,  which  it  retains  from 
its  first  state  and  condition,  is  to  debase  and  corrupt  them,  (as 
we  shall  see  in  sundry  instances)  and  so  make  way  for  their 
rejection. 

Hence  it  is  very  difficult  to  keep  up,  doctrinally  and  practi- 
cally, the  minds  of  men  to  the  reality  and  spiritual  height  of 
this  mystery.  For  men  naturally  neither  understand  it,  nor 
like  it.  And  therefore  every  attempt  to  accommodate  it  to  the 
principles  and  inbred  notions  of  corrupt  reason  is  very  accept- 
able to  many,  yea,  to  the  most.  For  the  things  which  such 
men  speak  and  declare,  are,  without  more  ado,  without  any 
exercise  of  faith  or  prayer,  without  any  supernatural  illumina- 
tion, easily  intelligible,  and  exposed  to  the  common  sense  of 
mankind.  But  whereas,  a  declaration  of  the  mysteries  of  the 
gospel  can  obtain  no  admission  into  the  minds  of  men,  but  by 
the  effectual  working  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  Ephes.  i.  17,  18,  19, 
it  is  generally  looked  on  as  difficult,  perplexed,  unintelligible; 
and  even  the  minds  of  many  who  find  they  cannot  contradict 
it,  are  yet  not  at  all  delighted  with  it.  And  here  lies  the  ad- 
vantage of  all  those  who,  in  these  days,  attempt  to  corrupt  the 
doctrine  of  the  gospel  in  the  whole  or  any  part  of  it;  for  the 
accommodation  of  it  to  the  common  notions  of  corrupted  rea- 
son, is  the  whole  of  what  they  design.  And  in  the  confidence 
of  the  suffrage  hereof,  they  not  only  oppose  the  things  them- 
selves, but  despise  the  declarations  of  them  as  enthusiastical 
canting.  And  by  nothing  do  they  more  prevail  themselves, 
than  by  a  pretence  of  reducing  all  things  to  reason,  and  a  con- 
tempt of  what  they  oppose,  as  unintelligible  fanaticism.  But 
I  am  not  more  satisfied  in  any  thing  of  the  most  uncontrolla- 
ble evidence,  than  that  the  understanding  of  these  men  is  no 
just  measure  or  standard  of  spiritual  truth.  Wherefore,  not- 
withstanding all  this  fierceness  and  scorn,  with  the  pretended 
advantages  which  some  think  they  have  made  by  traducing 
expressions  in  the  writings  of  some  men,  which  are  perhaps 
improper,  perhaps  only  not  suited  to  their  own  genius  and 
capacity  in  tliese  things,  we  are  not  to  be  "ashamed  of  the 
gospel  of  Christ,  which  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to 
every  one  that  believeih." 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


57 


Of  this  repugnancy  to  the  mystery  of  the  wisdom  and 
grace  of  God  in  Christ,  and  the  foundation  of  its  whole  economy 
in  the  distinct  operations  of  the  persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
therein,  there  are  two  parts  or  branches. 

I.  That  which  would  reduce  the  whole  of  it  to  the  private 
reason  of  men,  and  their  own  weak  imperfect  management 
thereof     This  is  the  entire  design  of  the  Socinians.     Hence, 

1.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  itself  is  denied,  impugned, 
yea  derided  by  them,  and  that  solely  on  this  account.  They 
plead  that  it  is  incomprehensible  by  reason;  for  there  is  in 
that  doctrine,  a  declaration  of  things  absolutely  infinite  and 
eternal,  which  cannot  be  exemplified  in,  nor  accommodated 
to,  things  finite  and  temporal.  This  is  the  substance  of  all 
tiieir  pleas  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  that  which 
gives  a  seeming  life  and  sprightly  vigour  to  their  objections 
against  it ;  wherein  yet  under  the  pretence  of  the  use  and 
exercise  of  reason,  they  fall,  and  resolve  all  their  reasonings 
into  the  most  absurd  and  irrational  principles  that  ever  the 
minds  of  men  were  besotted  with.  For  unless  you  will  grant 
them  that  what  is  above  their  reason  is  therefore  contradictory 
to  true  reason;  that  what  is  infinite  and  eternal  is  perfectly 
comprehensible,  and  in  all  its  concerns  and  respects  to  be 
accounted  for;  that  what  cannot  be  in  things  finite  and  of  a 
separate  existence,  cannot  be  in  things  infinite  whose  being 
and  existence  can  be  but  one,  with  other  such  irrational,  yea 
brutish  imaginations,  all  the  arguments  of  these  pretended  nieti 
of  reason  against  the  Trinity,  become  like  chaff  that  every 
breath  of  wind  will  blow  away.  Hereon  they  must,  as  they 
do,  deny  the  distinct  operations  of  any  persons  in  the  God- 
head in  the  dispensation  of  the  mystery  of  grace.  For  if  there 
are  no  such  distinct  persons,  there  can  be  no  such  distinct 
operations.  Now  as  upon  a  denial  of  these  things  no  one 
article  of  faith  can  be  rightly  understood,  nor  any  one  duty  of 
obedience  be  performed  to  God  in  an  acceptable  manner,  so 
in  particular,  we  grant  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  cannot  stand. 

2.  On  the  same  ground  the  incarnation  of  the  .Son  of  God  is 
rejected  as  atoirwv  atonotatov,  the  most  absurd  conception  that 
ever  befel  the  minds  of  men.  Now  it  is  to  no  purpose  to  dispute 
with  men  so  persuaded  about  justification.  Yea  we  will  freely 
acknowledge  that  all  things  we  believe  about  it  are  no  better 
than  "  old  wives'  tales,"  if  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God 
be  so  also.     For  I  can  as  well  understand  how  he  who  is  a 


58 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


mere  man,  however  exalted,  dignified  and  glorified,  can  exer- 
cise a  spiritual  rule  in  and  over  the  hearts,  consciences,  and 
thoughts  of  all  the  men  in  the  world,  being  intimately  knowing 
of  and  present  to  them  all  equally  at  all  times,  (which  is 
another  of  their  fopperies)  as  how  the  righteousness  and  obe- 
dience of  one  should  be  esteemed  the  righteousness  of  all  that 
believe,  if  that  one  be  no  more  than  a  man,  if  he  be  not 
acknowledged  to  be  the  Son  of  God  incarnate. 

Whilst  the  minds  of  men  are  prepossessed  with  such  pre- 
judices, nay  unless  they  firmly  assent  to  the  truth  in  these 
foundations  of  it,  it  is  impossible  to  convince  them  of  the  truth 
and  necessity  of  that  justification  of  a  sinner  which  is  revealed 
in  the  gospel.  Allow  the  Lord  Christ  to  be  no  other  per- 
son but  what  they  believe  him  to  be,  and  I  will  grant  there 
can  be  no  other  way  of  justification  than  what  they  declare  ; 
though  I  cannot  believe  that  ever  any  sinner  will  be  justified 
thereby.  These  are  the  issues  of  an  obstinate  refusal  to  give 
way  to  the  introduction  of  the  mystery  of  God  and  his  grace, 
into  the  way  of  salvation  and  our  relation  to  him. 

And  he  who  would  desire  an  instance  of  the  fertihty  of 
men's  inventions  in  forging  and  coining  objections  against 
heavenly  mysteries  in  the  justification  of  the  sovereignty  of 
their  own  reason  as  to  what  belongs  to  our  relation  to  God, 
need  go  no  further  than  the  writings  of  these  men  against  the 
Trinity  and  incarnation  of  the  Eternal  Word.  For  this  is  their 
fundamental  rule  in  things  divine  and  doctrines  of  religion, 
that  not  what  the  Scripture  saith  is  therefore  to  be  accounted 
true,  although  it  seems  repugnant  to  any  reasonings  of  ours, 
or  is  above  what  we  can  comprehend;  but  what  seems  repug- 
nant to  our  reason,  let  the  words  of  the  Scripture  be  what  they 
will,  that  that  we  must  conclude  that  the  Scripture  does  not 
say,  though  it  seems  never  so  expressly  so  to  do.*  "  Where- 
fore because  the  Scripture  aflirms  both  these"  (that  is  the 
efficacy  of  God's  grace  and  the  freedom  of  our  wills)  "  we 
cannot  conclude  from  thence,  that  they  are  not  repugnant; 
but  because  these  things  are  repugnant  to  one  another, 
we  must  determine,  that  one  of  them  is  not  spoken  in  the 
Scripture  ;"  no,  it  seems,  let  it  say  what  it  will.  This  is  the 
handsomest  way  they  can  take  in  advancing  their  own  reason 
above   the  Scripture,   which  yet  savours  of  intolerable  pre- 

*  Itaque  non  quia  utrumque  scriptura  dicat,  propterea  haec  inter  se  non  pugnare 
concludendum  est;  sed  potius  quia  htEc  inter  se  pugnant,  ideo  alterutrum  a  scrip- 
tura non  dici  statuendum  est.  Schlicting.  ad  Meisn.  def.  Socin.  p.  102. 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION.  59 

sumption.  So  Socinus  himself  speaking  of  the  satisfaction 
of  Christ,  says  in  plain  terms  ;*  "  For  my  part  if  this  (doctrine) 
were  extant  and  written  in  the  holy  Scripture,  not  once  but 
often,  yet  would  I  not  therefore  believe  it  to  be  so  as  you  think; 
for  whereas  it  can  by  no  means  be  so"  (whatever  the  Scripture 
saith)  "  I  would  as  I  do  with  others  in  other  places,  make  use 
of  some  less  incommodious  interpretation,  whereby  I  would 
draw  a  sense  out  of  the  words  that  should  be  consistent  with 
itself."  And  how  he  would  do  this  he  declares  a  little  before; 
he  would  "explain  the  words  into  another  sense  than  what 
they  sound  or  propose,  even  by  unusual  tropes."  And  indeed 
such  uncouth  tropes  does  he  apply  as  so  many  engines  and 
machines  to  pervert  all  the  divine  testimonies  concerning  our  re- 
demption, reconciliation,  and  justification  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 

Having  therefore  fixed  this  as  their  rule,  constantly  to  prefer 
their  own  reason  above  the  express  words  of  the  Scripture, 
which  must  therefore  by  one  means  or  other  be  so  perverted 
or  wrested  to  be  made  compliant  therewith,  it  is  endless  lo 
trace  them  in  their  multiplied  objections  against  the  holy  mys- 
teries, all  resolved  into  this  one  principle,  that  their  reason 
cannot  comprehend  them,  and  does  not  approve  of  them. 
And  if  any  man  would  have  an  especial  instance  of  the  serpen- 
tine wits  of  men,  winding  themselves  from  under  the  power  of 
conviction  by  the  spiritual  light  of  truth,  or  at  least  endeavour- 
ing so  to  do,  let  him  read  the  comments  of  the  Jewish  Rabbins 
on  Isaiah  liii.  and  of  the  Socinians  on  the  beginning  of  the 
Gospel  of  John. 

Secondly,  The  second  branch  of  this  repugnancy  springsfrom 
the  want  of  a  due  comprehension  of  that  harmony  which  is  in 
the  mystery  of  grace,  and  between  all  the  parts  of  it.  This 
comprehension  is  the  principal  effect  of  that  wisdom  which 
believers  are  taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  our  understand- 
ing of  the  wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery  is  neither  an  art  nor  a 
science,  whether  purely  speculative  or  more  practical,  but  a 
spiritual  wisdom.  And  this  spiritual  wisdom  is  such  as  under- 
stands and  apprehends  things,  not  so  much,  or  not  only  in  the 
notion  of  them,  as  in  their  power,  reality,  and  efficacy  towards 

*  Ego  qnidem  etiamsi  non  semel  sed  saepius  id  in  sacris  monumentis  scriptum 
extaret,  non  idcirco  tamen  ita  prorsus  rem  se  liabere  crederem,  ut  vos  opinamini ; 
cum  enim  id  omnino  fieri  non  possit,  non  secus  atque  in  multis  aliis  Scripturae 
Testimoniis,  una  cum  ceRteris  omnibus  facio;  aliqua  qute  minus  incommoda  vide- 
retur,  interpretatione  adhibita,  eum  sensum  ex  ejusmodi  verbis  elicerem  qui  sibi 
constaret. 


60  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION.  * 

their  proper  ends.  And  therefore  ahhoiigh  it  may  be  that 
very  few,  unless  they  be  learned,  judicious,  and  diligent  in  the 
use  of  means  of  all  sorts,  attain  to  it  clearly  and  distinctly  in 
the  doctrinal  notions  of  it;  yet  are  all  true  believers,  yea  the 
meanest  of  them,  directed  and  enabled  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
to  their  own  practice  and  duty,  to  act  suitably  to  a  compre- 
hension of  this  harmony,  according  to  the  promise  that  "  they 
shall  be  all  taught  of  God."  Hence  those  things  which  appear 
to  others  contradictory  and  inconsistent  one  with  another,  so 
that  they  are  forced  to  offer  violence  to  the  Scripture  and  their 
own  experience  in  the  rejection  of  the  one  or  other  of  them, 
are  reconciled  in  their  minds,  and  made  mutually  useful  or 
helpful,  to  one  another,  in  the  whole  course  of  their  obedience. 
But  these  things  must  be  further  spoken  to. 

Such  a  harmony  as  that  intended,  there  is  in  the  whole 
mystery  of  God.  For  it  is  the  most  curious  effect  and  product 
of  divine  wisdom  ;  and  it  is  no  impeachment  of  the  truth  of  it, 
that  it  is  not  discernible  by  human  reason.  A  full  compre- 
hension of  it  no  creature  can  in  this  world  arise  to.  Only  m 
the  contemplation  of  faith,  we  may  arrive  to  such  an  under- 
standing admiration  of  it,  as  shall  enable  us  to  give  glory  to 
God,  and  to  make  use  of  all  the  parts  of  it  in  practice  as  we 
have  occasion.  Concerning  it  the  holy  man  mentioned  before 
cried  out,  w  avi^tzvi-o.rsT's  5?;/it«pyta5 ;  "  0  uusearchable  coutrivauce 
and  operation  !"  and  so  is  it  expressed  by  the  apostle,  as  that 
which  has  an  unfathomable  depth  of  wisdom  in  it,  S  jSaOo? 
TfKovtov,  &c.  "  0  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom 
and  knowledge  of  God ;  how  unsearchable  are  his  ways  and 
his  judgments  past  finding  out,"  Rom.  ii.  33,  34,  35,  36.  See 
to  the  same  purpose,  Eph.  iii.  S,  9,  10. 

There  is  a  harmony,  a  suitableness  of  one  thing  to  another 
in  all  the  works  of  creation.  Yet  we  see  that  it  is  not  perfectly 
nor  absolutely  discoverable  to  the  wisest  and  most  diligent  of 
men.  How  far  are  they  from  an  agreement  about  the  order 
and  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  of  the  sympathies  and 
qualities  of  sundry  things  here  below,  in  the  relation  of  causality 
and  efficiency  between  one  thing  and  another.  The  new 
discoveries  made  concerning  any  of  them,  only  evidence  how 
far  men  are  from  a  just  and  perfect  comprehension  of  them. 
Yet  such  a  universal  harmony  there  is  in  all  the  parts  of  nature 
and  its  operations,  that  nothing  in  its  proper  station  and  ope- 
ration is  destructively  contradictory  either  to  the  whole,  or 
any  part  of  it,  but  every  thing  contributes  to  the  preservation 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION.  61 

and  use  of  the  universe.  But  although  this  harmony  be  not 
absolutely  comprehensible  by  any,  yet  do  all  living  creatures, 
who  follow  the  conduct  or  instinct  of  nature,  make  use  of  it, 
and  live  upon  it,  and  without  it  neither  their  being  could  be 
preserved,  nor  their  operations  continued. 

But  in  the  mystery  of  God  and  his  grace,  the  harmony  and 
suitableness  of  one  thing  to  another,  with  their  tendency  to 
the  same  end,  is  incomparably  more  excellent  and  glorious 
than  that  which  is  seen  in  nature  or  the  works  of  it.  For 
whereas  God  made  all  things  at  first  in  wisdom,  yet  is  the 
new  creation  of  all  things  by  Jesus  Christ,  ascribed  peculiarly 
to  the  riches,  stores,  and  treasures  of  that  infinite  wisdom. 
Neither  can  any  discern  it  unless  they  are  taught  of  God,  for 
it  is  only  spiritually  discerned.  But  yet  is  it  by  the  most 
despised.  Some  seem  to  think  that  there  is  no  great  wisdom 
in  it,  and  some  that  no  great  wisdom  is  required  to  the  com- 
prehension of  it.  Few  think  it  worth  the  while  to  spend  half 
that  time  in  prayer,  in  meditation,  in  the  exercise  of  self  denial, 
mortification  and  holy  obedience,  doing  the  will  of  Christ  that 
they  may  know  of  his  word  to  the  attaining  of  a  due  compre- 
hension of  the  mystery  of  godliness,  that  some  do  in  study, 
and  trial  of  experiments,  who  design  to  excel  in  natural  or 
mathematical  sciences.  Wherefore  there  are  three  things 
evident  herein. 

1.  That  such  a  harmony  there  is  in  all  the  parts  of  the 
mystery  of  God,  wherein  all  the  blessed  properties  of  the 
divine  nature  are  glorified,  our  duty  in  all  instances  is  directed 
and  engaged,  our  salvation  in  the  way  of  obedience  secured, 
and  Christ  as  the  end  of  all  exalted.  Wherefore  we  are  not 
only  to  consider  and  know  the  several  parts  of  the  doctrine  of 
spiritual  truth,  but  their  relation  also  one  to  another,  their 
consistency  one  with  another  in  practice,  and  their  mutual 
furtherance  of  one  another  to  their  common  end.  And  a 
disorder  in  our  apprehensions  about  any  part  of  that,  whose 
beauty  and  use  arises  from  its  harmony,  gives  some  confusion 
of  mind  with  respect  to  the  whole. 

2.  That  to  a  comprehension  of  this  harmony  in  a  due 
measure,  it  is  necessary  that  we  be  "taught  of  God,"  without 
which  we  can  never  be  wise  in  the  knowledge  of  the  mystery 
of  his  grace.  And  herein  ought  we  to  place  the  principal 
part  of  our  diligence  in  our  inquiries  into  the  truths  of  the 
gospel. 

3.  All  those  who  are  taught  of  God  to  know  his  will,  unless 

6 


62  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

it  be  when  their  minds  are  disordered  by  prejudices,  false 
opinions  or  temptations,  have  an  experience  in  themselves  and 
their  own  practical  obedience,  of  the  consistency  of  all  parts  of 
the  mystery  of  God's  grace  and  truth  in  Christ  among  them- 
selves, of  their  spiritual  harmony  and  cogent  tendency  to  the 
same  end.  The  introduction  of  the  grace  of  Christ  into  our 
relation  to  God,  makes  no  confusion  or  disorder  in  their  minds, 
by  the  conflict  of  the  principles  of  natural  reason,  with  respect 
to  our  first  relation  to  God,  and  those  of  grace  with  respect  to 
that  whereto  we  are  renewed. 

From  the  want  of  a  due  comprehension  of  this  divine  har- 
mony it  is,  that  the  minds  of  men  are  filled  with  imaginations 
of  an  inconsistency  between  the  most  important  parts  of  the 
mystery  of  the  gospel,  from  whence  the  confusions  that  are  at 
this  day  in  Christian  religion  proceed. 

Thus  the  Socinians  can  see  no  consistency  between  the 
grcKe  or  love  of  God,  and  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  but 
imagine  if  the  one  of  them  be  admitted,  the  other  must  be 
excluded  out  of  our  religion.  Wherefore  they  prmcipally 
oppose  the  latter  under  a  pretence  of  asserting  and  vindicating 
the  former.  And  where  these  things  are  expressly  conjoined 
in  the  same  proposition  of  faith  ;  as  where  it  is  said  that  we 
are  "justified  freely  by  the  grace  of  God,  through  the  redemp- 
tion that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a 
propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,"  as  Rom.  iii.  24,  25, 
they  will  offer  violence  to  common  sense  and  reason,  rather 
than  not  disturb  that  harmony  which  they  cannot  understand. 
For  although  it  be  plainly  affirmed  to  be  a  redemption  by  his 
blood,  as  he  is  a  propitiation,  as  his  blood  was  a  ransom  or 
price  of  redemption,  yet  they  will  contend,  that  it  is  only 
metaphorical,  a  mere  deliverance  by  power,  like  that  of  the 
Israelites  by  Moses.  But  these  things  are  clearly  stated  in 
the  gospel,  and  therefore  not  only  consistent,  but  such  as  that 
the  one  cannot  subsist  without  the  other.  Nor  is  there  any 
mention  of  any  especial  love  or  grace  of  God  to  sinners,  but 
with  respect  to  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  as  the  means  of  the 
communication  of  all  their  effects  to  them.  See  John  iii.  16. ; 
Rom.  iii.  23— 25,viii.  30 — 33.;2Cor.v.  19 — 21. ;  Ephes.  i.  7.  &c. 

In  like  manner,  they  can  see  no  consistency  between  the 
satisfaction  of  Christ,  and  the  necessity  of  holiness  or  obe- 
dience in  them  that  believe.  Hence  they  continually  clamour, 
that  by  our  doctrine  of  the  mediation  of  Christ,  we  overthrow 
all  obligations  to  a  holy  life.     And  by  their  sophistical  reason- 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION.  63 

ings  to  this  purpose,  they  prevail  with  many  to  embrace  their 
delusions,  who  have  not  a  spiritual  experience  to  confront 
their  sophistry  with.  But  as  the  testimony  of  the  Scripture 
lies  expressly  against  them,  so  those  who  truly  believe,  and 
have  real  experience  of  the  influence  of  that  truth  upon  the 
life  of  God,  and  how  impossible  it  is  to  yield  any  acceptable 
obedience  herein  without  respect  thereto,  are  secured  from 
their  snares. 

These  and  the  like  imaginations  arise  from  the  unwilling- 
ness of  men  to  admit  of  the  introduction  of  the  mystery  of 
grace,  into  our  relation  to  God.  For  suppose  us  to  stand  before 
God  on  the  old  constitution  of  the  covenant  of  creation,  which 
alone  natural  reason  likes  and  comprehends,  and  we  acknow- 
ledge these  things  to  be  inconsistent.  But  the  mystery  of  the 
wisdom  and  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  cannot  stand  without 
them  both. 

So  likewise  God's  efficacious  grace  in  the  conversion  of 
sinners,  and  the  exercise  of  the  faculties  of  their  minds  in  a 
way  of  diUy  are  asserted  as  contradictory  and  inconsistent. 
And  although  they  seem  both  to  be  positively  and  frequently 
declared  in  the  Scripture,  yet  say  these  men,  their  consistency 
being  repugnant  to  their  reason,  let  the  Scripture  say  what  it 
will,  yet  it  is  to  be  said  by  us,  that  the  Scripture  does  not  assert 
one  of  them.  And  this  is  from  the  same  cause;  men  cannot 
in  their  wisdom  see  it  possible  that  the  mystery  of  God's  grace 
should  be  introduced  into  our  relation  and  obedience  to  God. 
Hence  have  many  ages  of  the  church,  especially  the  last  of 
them,  been  filled  with  endless  disputes,  in  opposition  to  the 
grace  of  God,  or  to  accommodate  the  conceptions  of  it,  to  the 
niterests  of  corrupted  reason. 

But  there  is  no  instance  more  pregnant  to  this  purpose  than 
that  under  our  present  consideration.  Free  justification  through 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  is  cried  out 
against  as  inconsistent  with  a  necessity  of  personal  holiness 
and  obedience ;  and  because  the  Socinians  insist  principally 
on  this  pretence,  it  shall  be  fully  and  diligently  considered 
apart,  and  that  holiness,  which,  without  it,  they  and  others 
deriving  from  them,  pretend  to,  shall  be  tried  by  the  unerring 
rule. 

Wherefore  I  desire  it  may  be  observed  that  in  pleading  for 
this  doctrine,  we  do  it  as  a  principal  part  of  the  introduction 
of  grace  into  our  whole  relation  to  God.  Hence  we  grant : 

1.  That  it  is  unsuited,  yea  foolish,  and  as  some  speak  child- 


64  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

ish,  to  the  principles  of  unenlightened  and  unsanctified  reason, 
or  understandings  of  men.  And  this  we  conceive  to  be  the 
principal  cause  of  all  the  oppositions  that  are  made  to  it,  and 
all  the  depravations  of  it  that  the  church  is  pestered  with. 
Hence  are  the  wits  of  men  so  fertile  in  sophistical  cavils  against 
it,  so  ready  to  load  it  with  seeming  absurdities,  and  I  know 
not  what  unsuitableness  to  their  wondrous  rational  concep- 
tions. And  no  objection  can  be  made  against  it,  be  it  ever  so 
trivial,  but  is  highly  applauded  by  those,  who  look  on  that 
introduction  of  the  mystery  of  grace  which  is  above  their 
natural  conceptions,  as  unintelligible  folly. 

2.  That  the  necessary  relation  of  these  things  one  to  the 
other,  namely,  of  justification  by  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  and  the  necessity  of  our  personal  obedience, 
will  not  be  clearly  understood  nor  duly  improved,  but  by  and 
in  the  exercise  of  the  wisdom  of  faith.  This  we  grant  also ; 
and  let  who  will  make  what  advantage  they  can  of  this  con- 
cession. True  faith  has  such  spiritual  light  in  it,  or  accom- 
panying it,  that  it  is  able  to  receive  it,  and  to  conduct  the 
soul  to  obedience  by  it.  Wherefore,  reserving  the  particular 
consideration  hereof,  to  its  proper  place,  I  say  in  general, 

1.  That  this  relation  is  evident  to  that  spiritual  wisdom 
whereby  we  are  enabled  doctrinally  and  practically  to  com- 
prehend the  harmony  of  the  mystery  of  God,  and  the  con- 
sistency of  all  the  parts  of  it  one  with  another. 

2.  That  it  is  made  evident  by  the  Scripture,  wherein  both 
these  things,  justification  through  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  and  the  necessity  of  our  personal  obedience, 
are  plainly  asserted  and  declared.  And  we  defy  that  rule  of 
the  Socinians,  that  seeing  these  things  are  inconsistent  in  their 
apprehension  or  to  their  reason,  therefore  we  must  say  that 
one  of  them  is  not  taught  in  the  Scripture;  for  whatever  it 
may  appear  to  their  reason,  it  does  not  so  to  ours;  and  we 
have  at  least  as  good  reason  to  trust  to  our  own  reason,  as  to 
theirs.  Yet,  we  absolutely  acquiesce  in  neither,  but  in  the 
authority  of  God  in  the  Scripture  ;  rejoicing  only  in  this,  that 
we  can  set  our  seal  to  his  revelations  by  our  own  experience. 
For, 

3.  It  is  fully  evident  in  the  gracious  conduct  which  the 
minds  of  them  that  believe  are  under,  even  that  of  the  "  Spirit 
of  truth  and  grace,"  and  the  inclinations  of  that  new  principle 
of  the  divine  life  whereby  they  are  actuated.  For  although 
from  the  remainders  of  sin  and  darkness  that  are  in  them, 


THK    DOCTRINE   OF   JUSTIFICATION.  65 

temptations  may  arise  to  a  continuance  in  sin,  because  grace 
has  abounded,  yet  are  their  minds  so  formed  and  framed  by 
the  doctrine  of  this  grace,  and  the  grace  of  this  doctrine,  that 
the  abounding  of  grace  herein,  is  the  principal  motive  to  their 
abounding  in  holiness,  as  we  shall  see  afterwards. 

And  this  we  aver  to  be  the  spring  of  all  those  objections 
which  the  adversaries  of  this  doctrine  continually  endeavour 
to  entangle  it  with.  As  (1)  If  the  passive  righteousness  (as  it 
is  commonly  called,)  that  is,  his  death  and  suffering  be  imputed 
to  us,  there  is  no  need  nor  can  be,  that  his  active  righteous- 
ness or  the  obedience  of  his  life,  should  be  imputed  to  us  ;  and 
so  on  the  contrary  ;  for  both  together  are  inconsistent.  (2)  That 
if  all  sin  be  pardoned,  there  is  no  need  of  the  righteousness; 
and  so  on  the  contrary,  if  the  righteousness  of  Christ  be  imputed 
to  us,  there  is  no  room  for  or  need  of  the  pardon  of  sin.  (3)  If 
we  believe  the  pardon  of  our  sins,  then  are  our  sins  pardoned 
before  we  believe,  or  we  are  bound  to  believe  that  which  is 
not  so.  (4)  If  the  righteousness  of  Christ  be  imputed  to  us, 
then  are  we  esteemed  to  have  done  and  suffered,  what  indeed 
we  never  did  nor  suffered;  and  it  is  true,  that  if  we  are 
esteemed  ourselves  to  have  done  it,  imputation  is  overthrown. 
(5)  If  Christ's  righteousness  be  imputed  to  us,  then  are  we  as 
righteous  as  was  Christ  himself.  (6)  If  our  sins  were  imputed 
to  Christ,  then  was  he  thought  to  have  sinned,  and  was  a 
sinner  subjectively.  (7)  If  good  works  be  excluded  from  any 
interest  in  our  justification  before  God,  then  are  they  of  no 
use  to  our  salvation.  (8)  That  it  is  ridiculous  to  think,  that 
where  there  is  no  sin,  there  is  not  all  the  righteousness  that 
can  be  required.  (9)  That  righteousness  imputed  is  only  a 
putative  or  imaginary  righteousness,  &c. 

Now,  although  all  these  and  the  like  objections  however 
subtilly  managed,  (as  Socinus  boasts  that  he  had  used  more 
than  ordinary  subtility  in  this  cause,)*  are  capable  of  plain  and 
clear  solutions,  and  we  shall  avoid  the  examination  of  none  of 
them;  yet  at  present  I  shall  only  say,  that  all  the  shades  which 
they  cast  on  the  minds  of  men,  vanish  and  disappear  before 
the  light  of  express  Scripture  testimonies,  and  the  experience 
of  them  that  believe,  where  there  is  a  due  comprehension  of 
the  mystery  of  grace  in  any  tolerable  measure. 

Seventhly — There   are   some   common  prejudices  that  are 

*  In  quo  si  subtilius  aliquanto  quam  opus  esse  vidcrctur,  qusdam  a  nobis  dis- 
putata  sunt ;  De  servat.  par.  4.  cap.  4. 

6* 


66  THE   DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION, 

usually  pleaded  against  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  which  because  they  will  not  orderly 
fall  under  a  particular  consideration  in  our  progress,  may  be 
briefly  examined  in  these  general  previous  considerations. 

1.  It  is  usually  urged  against  it,  that  this  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  no  where  mentioned  expressly  in  the 
Scripture,  This  is  the  first  objection  of  Bellarmine  against  it.* 
"  As  yet  they  have  not  been  able  to  find  a  single  passage  which 
asserted  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  was  imputed  to  us  for 
righteousness ;  or  that  we  were  righteous  through  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  imputed  to  us,"  An  objection,  doubtless, 
unreasonably  and  immodestly  urged  by  men  of  his  persuasion. 
For,  not  only  do  they  make  profession  of  their  whole  faith,  or 
their  belief  of  all  things  in  matters  of  rehgion,  in  terms  and 
expressions  no  where  used  in  the  Scripture,  but  believe  many 
things  also,  as  they  say,  with  faith  divine,  not  at  all  revealed 
or  contained  in  the  Scrrpture,  but  drained  by  them  out  of  the 
traditions  of  the  church.  I  do  not  therefore  understand  how 
such  persons  can  modestly  manage  this  as  an  objection  against 
any  doctrine,  that  the  terms  wherein  some  do  express  it,  are 
not  in  so  many  words  found  in  the  Scripture,  just  in  that  order 
of  one  word  after  another  as  by  them  they  are  used.  For 
this  rule  may  be  much  enlarged,  and  yet  be  kept  strait  enough 
to  exclude  the  principal  concerns  of  their  church  out  of  the 
confines  of  Christianity.  Nor  can  I  apprehend  nmch  more 
equity  in  others  who  reflect  with  severity  on  this  expression  of 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as  unscriptural, 
as  if  those  who  make  use  thereof,  were  criminal  in  no  small 
degree;  when  themselves  immediately  in  the  declaration  of 
their  own  judgment,  make  use  of  such  terms,  distinctions  and 
expressions,  as  are  so  far  from  being  in  the  Scripture,  that  it  is 
odds  they  had  never  been  in  the  world,  had  they  escaped 
Aristotle's  mint,  or  that  of  the  schools  deriving  from  him. 

And  thus  although  a  sufficient  answer  has  frequently  enough, 
if  any  thing  can  be  so,  been  returned  to  this  objection  in  Bel- 
larmine, yet  has  one  of  late  amongst  ourselves  made  the  trans- 
lation of  it  into  English,  to  be  the  substance  of  the  first  chap- 
ter of  a  book  about  justification;  though  he  needed  not  to  have 
given  such  an  early  intimation  to  whom  he  is  beholden  for  the 

*  Hactenus,  nullum  omnino  locum  invenire  potucrunt  ubi  legeretur  Christi 
Justitiam  nobis  imputari  ad  justitiam;  vel  nos  justos  esse  per  Christi  Justitiam 
nobis  imputatam.     Dc  Justificat.  lib.  2.  cap.  7. 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION.  67 

greatest  part  of  his  ensuing  discourse,  unless  it  be  what  is  taken 
up  in  despiteful  reviling  of  other  men.  For  take  from  him 
what  is  not  his  own  on  the  one  hand,  and  impertinent  cavils  at 
the  words  and  expressions  of  other  men,  with  forged  imputa- 
tions on  some  of  them,  on  the  other,  and  his  whole  book  will 
disappear.  But  yet,  although  he  affirms  that  none  of  the  Pro- 
testant writers  who  speak  of  the  imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  to  us,  (which  were  all  of  them  without  exception 
until  of  late)  have  "precisely  kept  to  the  form  of  wholesome 
words,  but  have  rather  swerved  and  varied  from  the  language 
of  the  Scripture,"  yet  he  will  excuse  them  from  open  error, 
if  they  intend  no  more  thereby,  but  that  we  are  made  par- 
takers of  the  benefits  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  But  if  they 
intend  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  itself  is  imputed  to  us, 
(that  is,  so  as  to  be  our  righteousness  before  God,  whereon  we 
are  pardoned  and  accepted  with  him,  or  receive  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  a  right  to  the  heavenly  inheritance)  then  are  they 
guilty  of  that  error  which  makes  us  to  be  esteemed  to  do  our- 
selves what  Christ  did;  and  so  on  the  other  side,  Christ  to  have 
done  what  we  do  and  did.  But  these  things  are  not  so.  For 
if  we  are  esteemed  to  have  done  any  thing  in  our  own  persons, 
it  cannot  be  imputed  to  us  as  done  for  us  by  another;  as  it 
will  appear  when  we  shall  treat  of  these  things  afterwards. 
But  the  great  and  holy  persons  intended,  are  as  little  concerned 
in  the  accusations  or  apologies  of  some  writers,  as  those  writers 
seem  to  be  acquainted  with  that  learning,  wisdom  and  judg- 
ment, wherein  they  excelled,  and  the  characters  whereof  are 
so  eminently  conspicuous  in  all  their  writings. 

But  the  judgment  of  most  Protestants  is  not  only  candidly 
expressed,  but  approved  of  also  by  Bellarmine  himself  in  an- 
other place.*  "  It  were  not  absurd  if  any  one  should  say  that 
the  righteousness  and  merits  of  Christ  are  imputed  to  us,  when 
they  are  given  and  applied  to  us,  as  if  we  ourselves  had  satis- 
fied God."  And  this  he  confirms  with  that  saying  of  Ber- 
nard,! "  For  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead;  that  is  to 
say,  that  the  satisfaction  of  one  is  imputed  to  all,  as  he  alone 
bore  the  sins  of  all."     And  those  who  will  acknowledge  no 

*  Non  esset  absurdum  si  quis  diceret  nobis  imputari Christi  justitiam  etmerita; 
cum  nobis  donentur  et  applicentur;  ac  si  nos  ipsi  Deo  satisfecissemus.  De  Justif. 
lib.  2.  cap.  10. 

t  Nam  si  unus  pro  omnibus  mortuus  est,  ergo  omnes  mortui  sunt,  ut  videlicet 
satisfactio  unius  omnibus  imputetur,  sicut  omnium  peccata  unus  ille  portavit.  In- 
nocent.  Ad  Innocent.  Epist.  190. 


68  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

more  in  this  matter,  but  only  a  participation  quovis  modo,  one 
way  or  other,  of  the  benefits  of  the  obedience  and  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  wherein  we  have  the  concurrence  of  the  Soci- 
nians  also,  might  do  well  as  I  suppose,  plainly  to  deny  all 
imputation  of  his  righteousness  to  us  in  any  sense,  as  they  do, 
seeing  the  benefits  of  his  righteousness  cannot  be  said  to  be 
imputed  to  us,  what  way  soever  we  are  made  partakers  of 
them.  For  to  say,  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed 
to  us  with  respect  to  the  benefits  of  it,  when  neither  the  right- 
eousness itself  is  imputed  to  us,  nor  can  the  benefits  of  it  be 
imputed  to  us,  as  we  shall  see  afterwards,  ministers  great  oc- 
casion of  much  needless  variance  and  contests.  Neither  do  I 
know  any  reason  why  men  should  seek  countenance  to  this 
doctrine  under  such  an  expression  as  themselves  reflect  upon 
as  unscriptural,  if  they  be  contented  that  their  minds  and  sense 
should  be  clearly  understood  and  apprehended.  For  truth 
needs  no  subterfuges. 

The  Socinians  now  principally  make  use  of  this  objection. 
For  finding  the  whole  Church  of  God  in  the  use  of  sundry  ex- 
pressions, in  the  declaration  of  the  most  important  truths  of 
the  gospel,  that  are  not  literally  contained  in  the  Scripture, 
they  hoped  for  an  advantage  from  thence  in  their  opposition 
to  the  things  themselves.  Such  are  the  terms  of  the  Trinity, 
the  incarnation,  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ,  as  this  also 
of  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness.  How  little  they  have 
prevailed  in  the  other  instances  has  been  sufficiently  manifested 
by  them  with  whom  they  have  had  to  do.  But  as  to  that  part 
of  this  objection  which  concerns  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  to  believers,  those  by  whom  it  is  asserted  say: 

1.  That  it  is  the  thing  alone  intended  which  they  plead  for. 
If  that  be  not  contained  in  the  Scripture,  if  it  be  not  plainly 
taught  and  confirmed  therein,  they  will  speedily  relinquish  it. 
But  if  they  can  prove  that  the  doctrine  which  they  intend  in 
this  expression,  and  which  is  thereby  plainly  declared  to  the 
understandings  of  men,  is  a  divine  truth,  sufficiently  witnessed 
to  in  the  Scripture,  then  is  this  expression  of  it  reductively 
Scriptural,  and  the  truth  itself  so  expressed  a  divine  verity.  To 
deny  this,  is  to  take  away  all  use  of  the  interpretation  of  the 
Scripture;  and  to  overthrow  the  ministry  of  the  church.  This 
therefore  is  to  be  alone  inquired  into. 

2.  They  say,  the  same  thing  is  taught  and'  expressed  in  the 
Scripture,  in  phrases  equivalent.  For  it  affirms  that  "  by  the 
obedience  of  One,"  (that  is  Christ)  "  shall  many  be  made  right- 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION.  69 

eous,"  Rom.  v.  19.  And  that  we  are  made  righteous  by  the 
imputation  of  righteousness  to  us.  "  Blessed  is  the  man  unto 
whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works,"  chap,  iv, 
6.  And  if  we  are  made  righteous  by  the  imputation  of  right- 
eousness to  us,  that  obedience  or  righteousness,  wliereby  we 
are  made  righteous,  is  imputed  to  us.  And  they  will  be  con- 
tent with  this  expression  of  this  doctrine.  That  the  obedience 
of  Christ,  whereby  we  are  made  righteous,  is  the  righteousness 
that  God  imputes  to  us.  Wherefore  this  objection  is  of  no  force 
to  disadvantage  the  truth  pleaded  for. 

3.  Socinus  objects  in  particular  against  this  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and 
of  his  satisfaction,  that  there  is  nothing  said  of  it  in  the  Evan- 
gelists, nor  in  the  report  of  the  sermons  of  Christ  to  the  people, 
no,  nor  yet  in  those  of  his  private  discourses  with  his  disciples. 
And  he  urges  it  vehemently  and  at  large,  against  the  whole  of 
the  expiation  of  sin  by  his  death.  Ai^sd  as  it  is  easy,  malis 
i7iventis  pejora  acldere,  this  notion  of  his  is  not  only  made  use 
of  and  pressed  at  large  by  one  among  ourselves,  but  improved 
also  by  a  dangerous  comparison  between  the  writings  of  the 
Evangelists  and  the  other  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 
For  to  enforce  this  argument,  that  the  histories  of  the  gospel 
wherein  the  sermons  of  Christ  are  recorded,  make  no  mention 
of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as  in  his  judg- 
ment they  do  not,  nor  of  his  satisfaction,  or  merit  or  expiation 
of  sin,  or  of  redemption  by  his  death,  as  they  do  not  in  the 
judgment  of  Socinus,  it  is  added  by  him,  that  for  his  part  he 
is  "  apt  to  admire  our  Saviour's  sermons,  who  was  the  author 
of  our  religion,  before  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  though  in- 
spired men."  To  which  many  dangerous  insinuations  and 
reflections  on  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  contrary  to  the  faith 
and  sense  of  the  church  in  all  ages,  are  subjoined. 

But  this  boldness  is  not  only  unwarrantable,  but  to  be  ab- 
horred. What  place  of  Scripture,  what  ecclesiastical  tradition, 
what  single  precedent  of  any  one  sober  Christian  writer,  what 
theological  reason,  will  countenance  a  man  in  making  the  com- 
parison mentioned,  and  so  determining  thereon?  Such  juve- 
nile boldness,  such  want  of  a  due  apprehension  and  under- 
standing of  the  nature  of  Divine  inspirations,  with  the  order 
and  design  of  the  writing  of  the  New  Testament,  which  are 
the  springs  of  this  precipitate  censure,  ought  to  be  reflected  on. 
At  present,  to  remove  this  pretence  out  of  our  way,  it  may  be 
observed, 


70 


THE    DOCTRINE   OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


1.  That  what  the  Lord  Christ  taught  his  disciples  in  his  per- 
sonal ministry  on  the  earth,  was  suited  to  that  economy  of  the 
church,  which  was  antecedent  to  his  death  and  resurrection. 
Nothing  did  he  withhold  from  them,  that  was  needful  to  their 
faith,  obedience  and  consolation  in  that  state.  Many  things 
he  instructed  them  in,  out  of  the  Scripture,  many  new  revela- 
tions he  made  to  them,  and  many  times  did  he  occasionally 
instruct  and  rectify  their  judgments.  Howbeit  he  made  no 
clear  distinct  revelation  of  those  sacred  mysteries  to  them, 
which  are  peculiar  to  the  faith  of  the  New  Testament,  nor 
were  to  be  distinctly  apprehended  before  his  death  and  resur- 
rection. 

2.  What  the  Lord  Christ  revealed  afterwards  by  his  Spirit 
to  the  Apostles,  was  no  less  immediately  from  himself,  than 
was  the  truth  which  he  spoke  to  them  with  his  own  mouth 
in  the  days  of  his  flesh.  An  apprehension  to  the  contrary  is 
destructive  of  Christianity.  The  epistles  of  the  Apostles  are 
no  less  Christ's  sermons,  than  that  which  he  delivered  on  the 
mount.  Wherefore, 

3.  Neither  in  the  things  themselves,  nor  in  the  way  of  their 
delivery  or  revelation,  is  there  any  advantage  of  the  one  sort 
of  writings  above  the  other.  The  things  written  in  the  epistles 
proceed  from  the  same  wisdom,  the  same  grace,  the  same  love, 
with  the  things  which  lie  spoke  with  his  own  mouth  in  the 
days  of  his  flesh,  and  are  of  the  same  Divine  veracity,  author- 
ity and  etficacy.  The  revelation  which  he  made  by  his  Spirit, 
is  no  less  divine  and  immediate  from  himself,  than  what  he 
spoke  to  his  disciples  on  the  earth.  To  distinguish  between 
these  things  on  any  of  these  accounts,  is  intolerable  folly. 

4.  The  writings  of  the  Evangelists  do  not  contain  the  whole 
of  all  the  instructions  which  the  Lord  Christ  gave  to  his  disci- 
ples personally  on  earth.  For  he  was  "  seen  of  them  after  his 
resurrection  forty  days,  and  spoke  with  them  of  the  things  per- 
taining to  the  kingdom  of  God,"  Acts  i.  3.  And  yet  nothing 
hereof  is  recorded  in  their  writings,  but  only  some  few  occa- 
sional speeches.  Nor  had  he  given  them  before  a  clear  and 
distinct  understanding  of  those  things  which  were  delivered 
concerning  his  death  and  resurrection  in  the  Old  Testament,  as 
is  plainly  declared,  Luke  24 — 27.  For  it  was  not  necessary 
for  them  in  that  state  wherein  they  were.    Wherefore, 

5.  As  to  the  extent  of  Divine  revelations  objectively,  those 
which  he  granted  by  his  Spirit  to  his  Apostles  after  his  ascen- 
sion, were  beyond  those  which  he  personally  taught  them,  so 


TKE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION.  71 

far  as  they  are  recorded  in  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists. 
For  he  told  them  plainly,  not  long  before  his  death,  that  he 
had  many  things  to  say  to  them,  which  then  they  could  not 
bear,  John  xvi.  12.  And  for  the  knowledge  of  those  things, 
he  refers  them  to  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  to  make  revelation 
of  them  from  himself,  in  the  next  words :  "  Howbeit  when  He^ 
the  Spirit  of  Truth,  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth; 
for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself,  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear, 
that  shall  he  speak,  and  he  will  show  you  things  to  come.  He 
shall  glorify  me,  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine  and  show  it  unto 
you,"  ver.  13,  14.  And  on  this  account  he  had  told  them  be- 
fore, that  it  was  expedient  for  them  that  he  should  go  away, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  might  come  unto  them,  whom  he  would 
send  from  the  Father,  ver.  7.  Hereunto  he  referred  the  full 
and  clear  manifestation  of  the  mysteries  of  the  gospel.  So 
false,  as  well  as  dangerous  and  scandalous,  are  those  insinua- 
tions of  Socinus  and  his  followers. 

Secondly,  The  writings  of  the  Evangelists  are  full  to  their 
proper  ends  and  purposes.  These  were  to  record  the  gene- 
alogy, conception,  birth,  acts,  miracles  and  teachings  of  our 
Saviour,  so  far  as  to  evince  him  to  be  the  true  only  promised 
Messiah.  So  he  testifies  who  wrote  the  last  of  them.  "Many 
other  signs  truly  did  Jesus,  which  are  not  written  in  this  hoj^ 
but  these  are  written  that  ye  miglit  believe  that  Jesus  is 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"  John  xx.  30,  31.  To  this  end  every 
thing  is  recorded  by  them  that  is  needful  to  the  ingenerating 
and  establishment  of  faith.  Upon  this  confirmation,  all  things 
declared  in  the  Old  Testament  concerning  him,  all  that  was 
taught  in  types  and  sacrifices,  became  the  object  of  faith  in 
that  sense  wherein  tliey  were  interpreted  in  the  accomplish- 
ment: and  that  in  them  this  doctrine  was  before  revealed, 
shall  be  proved  afterwards.  It  is  therefore  no  wonder  if  some 
things,  and  those  of  the  highest  importance,  should  be  declared 
more  fully  in  other  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  than  they 
are  in  those  of  the  Evangelists. 

Thirdly,  The  pretence  itself  is  wholly  false.  For  there  are 
as  many  pregnant  testimonies  given  to  this  truth  in  one  alone 
of  the  Evangelists,  as  in  any  other  book  of  the  New  Testament; 
namely,  in  the  book  of  John.  I  shall  refer  to  some  of  them 
which  will  be  pleaded  in  their  proper  place,  John  i.  12,  17,  19. 
iii.  14—18.  36.  V.  24. 

But  we  may  pass  this  by,  as  one  of  those  inventions  con- 
cerning which  Socinus  boasts  in  his  epistle  to  Michael  Vajo- 


72 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


ditus,  that  his  writings  were  "  esteemed  by  many  for  the 
singularity  of  the  things  asserted  in  them." 

Fourthly,  The  difference  that  has  been  among  Protestant 
writers  about  this  doctrine  is  pleaded  to  the  prejudice  of  it. 
Osiander  in  the  entrance  of  the  Reformation  fell  into  a  vain 
imagination,  that  we  were  justified  or  made  righteous  with 
the  essential  righteousness  of  God,  communicated  to  us  by 
Jesus  Christ.  And  whereas  he  was  opposed  herein  with  some 
severity  by  the  most  learned  persons  of  those  days,  to  coun- 
tenance himself  in  his  singularity  he  pretended  that  there 
were  twenty  different  opinions  among  the  Protestants  them- 
selves, about  the  formal  cause  of  our  justification  before  God. 
This  was  quickly  laid  hold  of  by  them  of  the  Roman  church, 
and  is  urged  as  a  prejudice  against  the  whole  doctrine,  by 
Bellarmine,  Vasquez,  and  others.  But  the  vanity  of  this  pre- 
tence of  his  has  been  sufficiently  discovered ;  and  Bellarmine 
himself  could  fancy  but  four  opinions  among  them,  that  seemed 
to  be  different  from  one  another,  reckoning  that  of  Osiander 
for  one.  But  whereas  he  knew  that  the  imagination  of 
Osiander  was  exploded  by  them  all,  the  other  three  that  he 
mentions  are  indeed  but  distinct  parts  of  the  same  entire 
doctrine.  Wherefore  until  of  late  it  might  be  truly  said,  that 
the  faith  anrl  dnr.tnnft  qf  all  Protestants  was  in  this  article 
eruireiy  the  same.  For  however  they  differed  in  the  way, 
manner,  and  methods  of  its  declaration,  and  too  many  private 
men  were  addicted  to  definitions  and  descriptions  of  their  own, 
under  pretence  of  logical  accuracy  in  teaching,  which  gave  an 
appearance  of  some  contradiction  among  them,  yet  in  this  they 
generally  agreed,  that  it  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  and  not 
our  own,  on  the  account  whereof  we  receive  the  pardon  of  sin, 
acceptance  with  God,  are  declared  righteous  by  the  gospel, 
and  have  a  right  and  title  to  the  heavenly  inheritance.  Hereon, 
I  sa5^  they  were  generally  agreed,  first  against  the  Papists, 
and  afterwards  against  the  Socinians;  and  where  this  is  granted, 
I  will  not  contend  with  any  man  about  his  way  of  declaring 
the  doctrine  of  it. 

And  that  I  may  add  it  by  the  way,  we  have  herein  the 
concurrence  of  the  fathers  of  the  primitive  church.  For 
although  by  justification,  following  the  etymology  of  the  Latin 
word,  they  understood  the  making  us  righteous  with  internal 
personal  righteousness,  at  least  some  of  them  did  so,  as  Austin 
in  particular,  yet  that  we  are  pardoned  and  accepted  with 
God  on  any  other  account,  but  that  of  the  righteousness  of 


THE  DOCTRINE  OP  JUSTIFICATION. 


73 


Christ,  they  believed  not.  And  whereas,  especially  in  their 
controversy  with  the  Pelagians  after  the  rising  of  that  heresy, 
they  plead  vehemently  that  we  are  made  righteous  by  the 
grace  of  God,  changing  our  hearts  and  natures,  and  creating 
in  us  a  principle  of  spiritual  life  and  holiness,  and  not  by  the 
endeavours  of  our  own  free  will,  or  works  performed  in  the 
strength  thereof,  their  words  and  expressions  have  been  abused 
contrary  to  their  intention  and  design. 

For  we  wholly  concur  with  them,  and  subscribe  to  all  that 
they  dispute  about  the  making  of  us  personally  righteous  and 
holy,  by  the  effectual  grace  of  God,  against  all  merit  of  works 
and  operations  of  our  own  free  will,  (our  sanctification  being 
every  way  as  much  of  grace,  as  our  justification  properly  so 
called)  and  that  in  opposition  to  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Roman  church  about  the  same  matter ;  only  they  call  our 
being  made  inherently  and  personally  righteous  by  grace, 
sometimes  by  the  name  of  justification  which  we  do  not. 
And  this  is  laid  hold  of  as  an  advantage  by  those  of  the 
Roman  church  who  do  not  concur  with  them  in  the  way  and 
manner  whereby  we  are  so  made  righteous.  But  whereas  by 
our  justification  before  God,  we  intend  only  that  righteousness 
whereon  our  sins  are  pardoned,  wherewith  we  are  made 
righteous  in  his  sight,  or  for  which  we  are  accepted  as  righteous 
before  him,  it  will  be  hard  to  find  any  of  them  assigning  it  to 
any  other  causes  than  the  Protestants  do.  So  it  is  fallen  out, 
that  what  they  design  to  prove,  we  entirely  comply  with  them 
in;  but  the  way  and  manner  whereby  they  prove  it,  is  made 
use  of  by  the  Papists  to  another  end,  which  they  intended  not. 

But  as  to  the  way  and  manner  of  the  declaration  of  this 
doctrine  among  Protestants  themselves,  there  ever  was  some 
variety  and  difference  in  expressions.  Nor  will  it  be  other- 
wise whilst  the  abilities  and  capacities  of  men,  whether  in  the 
conceiving  of  things  of  this  nature,  or  in  the  expression  of 
their  conceptions,  are  so  various  as  they  are.  And  it  is  ac- 
knowledged that  these  differences  of  late  have  had  by  some 
as  much  weight  laid  upon  them,  as  the  substance  of  the  doctrine 
generally  agreed  in.  Hence  some  have  composed  entire  books 
consisting  almost  of  nothing,  but  impertinent  cavils  at  other 
men's  words  and  expressions.  But  these  things  proceed  from 
the  weakness  of  some  men,  and  other  vicious  habits  of  their 
minds,  and  do  not  belong  to  the  cause  itself.  And  such  per- 
i  sons,  as  for  me,  may  write  as  they  do,  and  fight  on  until  they 
are  weary.     Neither  has  the  multiplication  of  questions,  and 

7 


74  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

the  curious  discussions  of  them  in  the  handling  of  this  doc- 
trine, wherein  nothing  ought  to  be  diligently  insisted  on,  but 
what  is  directive  of  our  practice,  been  of  much  use  to  the  truth 
itself,  though  it  has  not  been  directly  opposed  in  them. 

That  which  is  of  real  difference  among  persons  who  agree 
in  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  may  be  reduced  to  a  very  few 
heads.  As  (1)  There  is  something  of  this  kind  about  the  nature 
of  faith  whereby  we  are  justified,  with  its  proper  object  in 
justifying,  and  its  use  in  justification.  And  an  instance  we 
have  herein,  not  only  of  the  weakness  of  our  intellects  in  the 
apprehension  of  spiritual  things,  but  also  of  the  remainders  of 
confusion  and  disorder  in  our  minds,  at  least  how  true  it  is  that 
we  "  know  only  in  part,"  and  "prophesy  only  in  part,"  whilst 
we  are  in  this  life.  For  whereas  this  faith  is  an  act  of  our 
minds,  put  forth  in  the  way  of  duty  to  God,  yet  many  by  whom 
it  is  sincerely  exercised,  and  that  continually,  are  not  agreed 
either  in  the  nature  or  proper  object  of  it.  Yet  is  there  no 
doubt  but  that  some  of  them  who  differ  amongst  themselves 
about  these  things,  have  delivered  their  minds  free  from  the 
prepossession  of  prejudices  and  notions  derived  from  other 
artificial  reasonings  imposed  on  them,  and  do  really  express 
their  own  conceptions  as  to  the  best  and  utmost  of  their  expe- 
rience. And  notwithstanding  this  diff'erence,  they  do  yet  all 
of  them  please  God  in  the  exercise  of  faith  as  it  is  their  duty, 
and  have  such  respect  to  its  proper  object,  as  secures  both 
their  justification  and  salvation.  And  if  we  cannot  on  this 
consideration  bear  with,  and  forbear  one  another  in  our  differ- 
ent conceptions,  and  expressions  of  those  conceptions  about 
these  things,  it  is  a  sign  we  have  a  great  mind  to  be  conten- 
tious, and  that  our  confidences  are  built  on  very  weak  founda- 
tions. For  my  part  I  had  much  rather  my  lot  should  be  found 
among  them  who  do  really  "believe  with  the  heart  unto  right- 
eousness," though  they  are  not  able  to  give  a  tolerable  defi- 
nition of  faith  to  others,  than  among  them  who  can  endlessly 
dispute  about  it  with  seeming  accuracy  and  skill,  but  are 
negligent  in  the  exercise  of  it  as  their  own  diUy.  Wherefore 
some  things  shall  be  briefly  spoken  of  in  this  matter,  to  declare 
my  own  apprehensions  of  the  things  mentioned  without  the 
least  design  to  contradict  or  oppose  the  conceptions  of  others. 

2.  There  has  been  a  controversy  more  directly  stated  among 
some  learned  divines  of  the  reformed  churches,  (for  the  Luthe- 
rans are  unanimous  on  the  one  side)  about  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  that  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  us.     For  some  would 


\ 


THE    DOCTRINE   OF  JUSTIFICATION.  75 

have  this  to  be  only  his  sutTering  of  death,  and  the  satisfaction 
which  he  made  for  sin  thereby,  and  others  include  therein  ihe 
obedience  of  his  Hfe  also.  The  occasion,  original,  and  progress 
of  this  controversy,  the  persons  by  whom  it  has  been  managed, 
with  the  writings  wherein  it  is  so.  and  the  various  ways  that 
have  been  endeavoured  for  its  reconciliation,  are  sufficiently 
known  to  all,  who  have  inquired  into  these  things.  Neither 
shall  I  engage  herein,  in  the  way  of  controversy  or  in  opposi- 
tion to  others,  though  I  shall  freely  declare  my  own  judgment 
in  it,  so  far  as  the  consideration  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
under  this  distinction  is  inseparable  from  the  substance  of  the 
truth  itself  which  I  plead  for. 

3.  Some  difference  there  has  been  also,  whether  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  imputed  to  us,  or  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  may  be  said  to  be  the  formal  cause  of 
our  justification  before  God,  wherein  there  appears  some 
variety  of  expression  among  learned  men,  who  have  handled 
this  subject  in  the  way  of  controversy  with  the  Papists.  The 
true  occasion  of  the  differences  about  this  expression  has  been 
this  and  no  other.  Those  of  the  Roman  church  constantly 
assert,  that  the  righteousness  whereby  we  are  righteous  before 
God,  is  the  formal  cause  of  our  justification.  And  this  right- 
eousness, they  say,  is  our  own  inherent  personal  righteousness, 
and  not  the  righteousnes  of  Christ  imputed  to  us.  Wherefore 
they  treat  of  this  whole  controversy,  namely,  what  is  the  right- 
eousness on  the  account  whereof  we  are  accepted  with  God, 
or  justified,  under  the  name  of  the  formal  cause  of  justification, 
which  is  the  subject  of  the  second  book  of  Bellarmine  concern- 
ing justification.  In  opposition  to  them,  some  Protestants 
contending  that  the  righteousness  wherewith  we  are  esteemed 
righteous  before  God,  and  accepted  with  him,  is  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  imputed  to  us,  and  not  our  own  inherent, 
imperfect  personal  righteousness,  have  done  it  under  this 
mquiry,  namely,  what  is  the  formal  cause  of  our  justifica- 
tion? which  some  have  said  to  be  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  some  the  righteousness  of  Christ  im- 
puted. But  what  they  designed  herein  was  not  to  resolve 
this  controversy  into  a  philosophical  inquiry  about  the  na- 
ture of  a  formal  cause,  but  only  to  prove  that  that  truly 
belonged  to  the  righteousness  of  Christ  in  our  justification, 
which  the  Papists  ascribed  to  our  own,  under  that  name. 
That  there  is  an  habitual  infused  habit  of  grace  which  is 
the  formal  cause  of  our  personal  inherent  righteousness  they 


76  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

grant.  But  they  all  deny  that  God  pardons  our  sins,  and  jus- 
tifies our  persons  with  respect  to  this  righteousness  as  the 
formal  cause  thereof.  Nay  they  deny  that  in  the  justification 
of  a  sinner  there  either  is,  or  can  be  any  inherent  formal  cause 
of  it.  And  what  they  mean  by  a  formal  cause  in  our  justifica- 
tion, is  only  that  which  gives  the  denomination  to  the  subject, 
as  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  does  to  a  person 
that  he  is  justified. 

Wherefore  notwithstanding  the  differences  that  have  been 
among  some  in  the  various  expression  of  their  conceptions,  the 
substance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  reformed  churches  is  by  them 
agreed  upon  and  retained  entire.  For  they  all  agree  that  God 
justifies  no  sinner,  absolves  him  not  from  guilt,  nor  declares 
him  righteous,  so  as  to  have  a  title  to  the  heavenly  inheritance, 
but  with  respect  to  a  true  and  perfect  righteousness;  as  also 
that  this  righteousness  is  truly  the  righteousness  of  him  that  is 
so  justified.  That  this  righteousness  becomes  ours  by  God's 
free  grace  and  donation,  the  way  on  our  part  whereby  we 
come  to  be  really  and  effectually  interested  therein,  being  faith 
alone:  and  that  this  is  the  perfect  obedience  or  righteousness 
of  Christ  imputed  to  us; — these  things,  as  they  shall  be  after- 
wards distinctly  explained,  contain  the  whole  of  that  truth, 
whose  explanation  and  confirmation  is  the  design  of  the  ensu- 
ing discourse.  And  because  those  by  whom  this  doctrine  in 
the  substance  of  it,  is  of  late  impugned,  derive  more  from  the 
Socinians  than  the  Papists,  and  make  a  nearer  approach  to 
their  principles,  I  shall  chiefly  insist  on  the  examitiation  of 
those  original  authors,  by  whom  their  notions  were  first  coined, 
and  whose  weapons  they  make  us  of  in  their  defence. 

Eighthly,  To  close  these  previous  discourses,  it  is  worthy 
our  consideration  what  weight  was  laid  on  this  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification at  the  first  Reformation,  and  what  influence  it  had 
upon  the  whole  work  thereof.  However  the  minds  of  men  may 
be  changed  as  to  sundry  doctrines  of  faith  among  us,  yet  none 
can  justly  own  the  name  of  Protestant,  but  he  must  highly 
value  the  first  Reformation.  And  they  cannot  well  do  other- 
wise, whose  present  even  temporal  advantages  are  resolved 
thereinto.  However  I  intend  none  but  such  as  own  an  espe- 
cial presence  and  guidance  of  God  with  those  who  were  emi- 
nently and  successfully  employed  therein.  Such  persons  can- 
not but  grant  that  their  faith  in  this  matter,  and  the  concur- 
rence of  their  thoughts  about  its  importance,  are  worthy  con- 
sideration. 


THE    DOCTRINE   OF  JUSTIFICATION.  77 

Now  it  is  known,  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  gave  the 
first  occasion  to  the  whole  work  of  Reformation,  and  was  the 
aiain  hinge  whereon  it  turned.  This  those  mentioned  declared 
to  be  articulus  stantis  aut  cadentis  ecclesise,  "  an  article  by 
which  the  church  stands  or  falls;"  and  that  the  vindication 
thereof  alone,  deserved  all  the  pains  that  was  taken  in  the 
whole  endeavour  of  reformation.  But  things  are  now,  and 
that  by  virtue  of  their  doctrine  herein,  much  changed  in  the 
world,  though  it  be  not  so  understood  or  acknowledged.  In 
general  no  small  benefit  redounded  to  the  world  by  the  Refor- 
mation, even  among  them  by  whom  it  was  not,  nor  is  received, 
though  many  bluster  with  contrary  pretensions.  For  all  the 
evils  which  have  accidentally  ensued  thereon,  arising  most  of 
them  from  the  corrupt  passions  and  interests  of  them  by  whom 
it  has  been  opposed,  are  usually  ascribed  to  it;  and  all  the  light, 
liberty,  and  benefit  of  the  minds  of  men  which  it  has  intro- 
duced, are  ascribed  to  other  causes.  But  this  may  be  signally 
observed  with  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  justification,  with  the 
causes  and  effects  of  its  discovery  and  vindication.  For  the 
first  reformers  found  their  own,  and  the  consciences  of  other 
men,  so  immersed  in  darkness,  so  pressed  and  harassed  with 
fears,  terrors,  and  disquietnients  under  the  power  of  it,  and  so 
destitute  of  any  steady  guidance  into  the  ways  of  peace  with 
God,  as  that  with  all  diligence  (like  persons  sensible  that  herein 
their  spiritual  and  eternal  interest  was  concerned)  they  made 
their  inquiries  after  the  truth  in  this  matter,  which  they  knew 
must  be  the  only  means  of  their  deliverance.  All  men  in  those 
days  were  either  kept  in  bondage  under  endless  fears  and 
anxieties  of  mind  upon  the  convictions  of  sin,  or  sent  for  relief 
to  indulgences,  priestly  pardons,  penances,  pilgrimages,  satis- 
factory works  of  their  own,  and  supererogatory  of  others,  or 
kept  under  chains  of  darkness  for  purgatory  unto  the  last  day. 
Now  he  is  no  way  able  to  compare  things  past  and  present, 
who  sees  not  how  great  an  alteration  is  made  in  these  things 
even  in  the  Papal  church.  For  before  the  Reformation,  where- 
by the  light  of  the  gospel,  especially  in  this  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation, was  diffused  among  men,  and  shone  even  into  their 
minds  who  never  comprehended  nor  received  it,  the  whole 
almost  of  religion  among  them  was  taken  up  with  and  confined 
to  these  things.  And  to  instigate  men  to  an  abounding  sedu- 
lity in  the  observation  of  them,  their  minds  were  stuffed  with  . 
traditions  and  stories  of  visions,  ap})aritiong,  frightful  spirits, 
and  other  imaginations  that  poor  mortals  are  apt  to  be  amazed 

7* 


78 


THE    DOCTRINE   OP  JUSTIFICATION. 


with,  and  which  their  restless  disquietments  gave  countenance 
to.  These  were  the  principal  objects  of  their  creed,  and  mat- 
ter of  their  religious  conversation.  That  very  church  itself  is 
comparatively  at  ease  from  these  things,  in  comparison  with 
what  it  was  before  the  Reformation;  though  so  much  of  them 
is  still  retained,  as  to  blind  the  eyes  of  men  from  discerning  the 
necessity  as  well  as  the  truth  of  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification. 

It  is  fallen  out  herein  not  much  otherwise  than  it  did  at  the 
first  entrance  of  Christianity  into  the  world.  For  there  was  an 
emanation  of  light  and  truth  from  the  gospel  which  affected 
the  minds  of  men,  by  whom  yet  the  whole  of  it  in  its  general 
design,  was  opposed  and  persecuted.  For  from  thence  the 
very  vulgar  sort  of  men  came  to  have  better  apprehensions  and 
notions  of  God  and  his  properties,  or  the  original  and  rule  of 
the  universe,  than  they  had  arrived  to  in  the  midnight  of  their 
paganism.  And  a  sort  of  learned  speculative  men  there  were, 
who  by  virtue  of  that  light  of  truth  which  sprung  from  the 
gospel,  and  was  now  diffused  into  the  minds  of  men,  reformed 
and  improved  the  old  philosophy,  discarding  many  of  those 
falsehoods  and  impertinences  wherewith  it  had  been  encum- 
bered. But  when  this  was  done,  they  still  maintained  their 
cause  on  the  old  principles  of  the  philosophers,  and  indeed 
their  opposition  to  the  gospel  was  far  more  plausible  and  plead- 
able than  it  was  before.  For  after  they  had  discarded  the  gross 
conceptions  of  the  common  sort  about  the  divine  nature  and 
rule,  and  had  blended  the  light  of  truth  which  broke  forth  in 
the  Christian  religion  with  their  own  philosophical  notions, 
they  made  a  vigorous  attempt  for  the  reinforcement  of  hea- 
thenism against  the  main  design  of  the  gospel.  And  things 
have  not,  as  I  said,  fallen  out  much  otherwise  in  the  Reforma- 
tion. For  as  by  the  light  of  truth  which  therein  broke  forth, 
the  consciences  of  even  the  vulgar  sort  are  in  some  measure 
freed  from  those  childish  terrors  which  they  were  before  in 
bondage  to;  so  those  who  are  learned  have  been  enabled  to 
reduce  the  opinions  and  practices  of  their  church,  into  a  more 
defensible  posture,  and  make  their  opposition  to  the  truths  of 
the  gospel  more  plausible  than  they  formerly  were.  Yea  that 
doctrine  which  in  the  way  of  its  teaching  and  practice  among 
them,  as  also  in  its  effects  on  the  consciences  of  men,  was  so 
horrid  as  to  drive  innumerable  persons  from  their  communion 
in  that  and  other  things  also,  is  now  in  the  new  representation 
of  it,  with  the  artificial  covering  provided  for  its  former  efl'ects 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  JUSTIFICATION.  79 

in  practice,  thought  an  argument  meet  to  be  pleaded  for  a  re- 
turn to  its  entire  communion. 

But  to  root  out  the  superstitions  mentioned  from  the  minds 
of  men,  to  communicate  to  them  the  knowledge  of  the  right- 
eousness of  God  which  is  revealed  from  faith  to  laith,  and  there- 
by to  deliver  them  from  their  bondage,  fears,  and  distress,  di- 
recting convinced  sinners  to  the  only  way  of  solid  peace  with 
God,  did  the  first  reformers  labour  so  diligently  in  the  declara- 
tion and  vindication  of  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  justification; 
and  God  was  with  them.  And  it  is  worth  our  consideration, 
whether  we  should,  on  every  cavil  and  sophism  of  men  not  so 
taught,  not  so  employed,  not  so  tried,  not  so  owned  of  God  as 
they  were,  and  in  whose  writings  there  do  not  appear  such 
characters  of  wisdom,  sound  judgment,  and  deep  experience 
as  in  theirs,  easily  part  with  that  doctrine  of  truth,  wherein 
alone  they  found  peace  to  their  own  souls,  and  whereby  they 
were  instrumental  to  give  liberty  and  peace  with  God  to  the 
souls  and  consciences  of  others  innumerable,  accompanied  with 
the  visible  effects  of  holiness  of  life,  and  fruilfulness  in  the 
works  of  righteousness,  to  the  praise  of  God  by  Jesus  Christ. 

In  my  judgment,  Luther  spake  the  truth  when  he  said; 
arnisso  articulo  Justificationis,  simiil  aniissa  est  tola  doc- 
trina  Christiana.  "  The  loss  of  the  article  of  Justificatio 
volves  the  loss  of  the  whole  Christian  doctrine."  And  I 
he  had  not  been  a  true  prophet,  when  he  foretold  that  in 
following  ages  the  doctrine  hereof  would  be  again  obscured; 
the  causes  whereof  I  have  elsewhere  inquired  into. 

Some  late  writers,  indeed,  among  the  Protestants,  have  en- 
deavoured to  reduce  the  controversy  about  justification  with 
the  Papists,  to  an  appearance  of  a  far  less  real  difference,  than 
is  usually  judged  to  be  in  it.  And  a  good  work  it  is,  no  doubt, 
to  pare  off  all  unnecessary  occasions  of  debate  and  differences 
in  religion,  provided  we  go  not  so  near  the  quick,  as  to  let  out 
any  of  its  vital  spirits.  The  way  taken  herein  is  to  proceed 
upon  some  concessions  of  the  most  sober  among  the  Papists,  in 
their  ascriptions  to  grace  and  the  merit  of  Christ  on  the  one 
side;  and  the  express  judgment  of  the  Protestants  variously 
delivered,  of  the  necessity  of  good  works  to  them  that  are  jus- 
tified. Besides  it  appears  that  in  different  expressions  which 
either  pa.rty  adhere  to,  as  it  were  by  tradition,  the  same  things 
are  indeed  intended.  Among  those  who  have  laboured  in  this 
kind,  Ludovicus  le  Blanc,  for  his  perspicuity  and  plainness, 
his  moderation,  and  freedom  from  a  contentious  frame  of  spirit, 


/ 


z  uoc- 
)n,  in-   I 
L  wish  f 
in  the/ 


80 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


\ 


is  almost  alone  worthy  to  be  read.  He  is  like  the  ghost  of 
Tiresias  in  this  matter.  But  I  must  needs  say,  that  I  have  not 
seen  the  effect  that  might  be  desired  of  any  such  undertaking. 
For  when  each  party  comes  to  the  interpretation  of  their  own 
concessions,  which  is  in  common  justice  to  be  allowed  to  them, 
and  which  they  will  be  sure  to  do  in  compliance  with  their 
judgment,  in  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  wherein  the  main 
stress  of  the  difference  lies,  the  distance  and  breach  continue  as 
wide  as  ever  they  were.  Nor  is  there  the  least  ground  towards 
peace  obtained  by  any  of  our  condescensions  or  compliances 
herein.  For  unless  we  can  come  up  entirely  to  the  decrees 
and  canons  of  the  council  of  Trent,  wherein  the  doctrine  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  is  anathematized,  they  will  make  no 
other  use  of  any  men's  compliances,  but  only  to  increase  the 
clamour  of  differences  among  ourselves.  I  mention  nothing  of 
this  nature  to  hinder  any  man  from  granting  whatever  he  can 
or  pleases  to  them,  without  the  prejudice  of  the  substance  of 
truths  professed  in  the  Protestant  churches;  but  only  to  inti- 
mate the  uselessness  of  such  concessions  in  order  to  peace  and" 
agreement  with  them,  whilst  they  have  a  Procrustes'  bed  to 
lay  us  upon;  and  from  whose  size  they  will  not  recede. 

Here  and  there  one,  (not  above  three  or  four  in  all,  may  be 
named  within  this  hundred  and  thirty  years,)  in  the  Roman 
communion,  has  owned  our  doctrine  of  justification  for  the 
substance  of  it.  So  did  Albertus  Pighius  and  the  Antidogma 
Coloniense,  as  Bellarmine  acknowledges.  And  what  he  says 
of  Pighius  is  true,  as  we  shall  see  afterwards;  the  other  I  have 
not  seen.  Cardinal  Contarenus,  in  a  Treatise  of  Justification, 
written  before,  and  published  about  the  beginning  of  the  Trent 
council,  delivers  himself  in  favour  of  it.  But  upon  the  obser- 
vation of  what  he  had  done,  some  say  he  was  shortly  after 
poisoned,  though  I  must  confess  I  know  not  where  they  had 
the  report. 

But  do  what  we  can  for  the  sake  of  peace,  (as  too  much 
cannot  be  done  for  it,  with  the  safety  of  truth,)  it  cannot  be 
denied  but  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  as  it  works  effectu- 
ally in  the  church  of  Rome,  is  the  foundation  of  many  enor- 
mities among  them  both  in  judgment  and  practice.  They  do 
not  continue,  I  acknowledge,  in  that  visible  predominancy  and 
rage  as  formerly;  nor  are  the  generality  of  the  people  in  so 
much  slavish  bondage  to  them  as  they  were.  But  the  streams 
of  them  still  issue  from  this  corrupt  fountain,  to  the  dangerous 
infection  of  the  souls  of  men.     For  the  expiatory  sacrifice  of 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


81 


the  mass  for  the  Hving  and  the  dead,  the  necessity  of  auricular 
confession,  with  authoritative  absolution,  penances,  pilgrimages, 
sacramentals,  indulgences,  commutations,  works  satisfactory 
and  supererogatory,  the  merit  and  intercession  of  saints  depart- 
ed, with  especial  devotions  and  applications  to  this  or  that  par- 
ticular saint  or  angel,  purgatory,  yea  in  fact  the  whole  of 
monastic  devotion,  depend  thereon.  They  are  all  nothing  but 
ways  invented  to  pacii'y  the  consciences  of  men,  or  divert  them 
from  attending  to  the  charge  which  is  given  in  against  them 
by  the  law  of  God;  sorry  supplies  they  are  of  a  righteousness 
of  their  own,  for  them  who  know  not  how  to  submit  themselves 
to  the  righteousness  of  God.  And  if  the  doctrine  of  free  justi- 
fication by  the  blood  of  Christ  were  once  again  exploded,  or 
corrupted  and  made  unintelligible;  to  these  things,  as  absurd 
and  foolish  as  now  to  some  they  seem  to  be,  or  to  something 
not  one  jot  better,  men  must  and  will  again  betake  themselves. 
For  if  once  they  are  diverted  from  putting  their  trust  in  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  and  grace  of  God  alone,  and  do  practi- 
cally thereon  follow  after,  take  up  with,  or  rest  in  that  wdiich 
is  their  own,  the  first  impressions  of  a  sense  of  sin  which  shall 
befall  their  consciences,  will  drive  them  from  their  present  hold, 
to  seek  for  shelter  in  any  thing  that  tenders  to  them  the  least 
appearance  of  relief.  Men  may  talk  and  dispute  what  they 
please  whilst  they  are  at  peace  in  their  own  minds  without  a 
real  sense  either  of  sin  or  righteousness;  yea  and  scoff  at  them 
who  are  not  under  the  power  of  the  same  security.  But  when 
they  shall  be  awakened  with  other  apprehensions  of  things 
than  yet  they  are  aware  of,  they  will  be  put  on  new  resolutions. 
And  it  is  in  vain  to  dispute  with  any  about  justification,  who 
have  not  been  duly  convinced  of  a  state  of  sin,  and  of  its  guilt; 
for  such  men  neither  understand  what  they  say,  nor  that 
whereof  they  dogmatize. 

We  have  therefore  the  same  reasons  that  the  first  reformers 
had  to  be  careful  about  the  preservation  of  this  doctrme  of  the 
gospel  pure  and  entire;  though  we  may  not  expect  the  like 
success  with  them  in  our  endeavours  to  that  end.  For  the 
minds  of  the  generality  of  men  are  in  another  posture  than 
they  were,  when  they  dealt  with  them.  Under  the  power  of 
ignorance  and  superstition  they  were,  but  yet  multitudes  of 
them  affected  with  a  sense  of  the  guilt  of  sin.  With  us  for  the 
most  part  things  are  quite  otherwise.  Notional  light,  accom- 
panied with  an  insensibility  of  sin,  leads  men  to  a  contempt  of 


82 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


this  doctrine,  indeed  of  the  whole  mystery  of  the  gospel.  We 
have  had  experience  of  the  fruits  of  the  faith  which  we  now 
plead  for  in  this  nation  for  many  years,  yea  now  for  some  ages. 
And  it  cannot  well  be  denied  that  those  who  have  been  most 
severely  tenacious  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the  imputa- 
tion of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  have  been  the  most  exem- 
plary in  a  holy  life;  I  speak  of  former  days.  And  if  this 
doctrine  be  yet  further  corrupted,  debased,  or  unlearned  among 
us,  we  shall  quickly  fall  into  one  of  the  extremes  wherewith 
we  are  at  present  urged  on  either  side.  For  although  the 
reliefs  provided  in  the  church  of  Rome,  for  the  satisfaction  of 
the  consciences  of  men  are  at  present  by  the  most  disliked,  yea 
despised;  yet  if  they  are  once  brought  to  a  loss  how  to  place 
their  whole  trust  and  confidence  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
and  grace  of  God  in  him,  they  will  not  always  live  at  such  an 
uncertainty  of  mind,  as  the  best  of  their  own  personal  obedience 
will  hang  them  on  the  briars  of;  but  betake  themselves  to 
somewhat  that  tenders  them  certain  peace  and  security,  though 
at  present  it  may  seem  foolish  to  them.  And  I  doubt  not  that 
some,  out  of  a  mere  ignorance  of  the  righteousness  of  God, 
which  either  they  have  not  been  taught,  or  have  no  mind  to 
learn,  have  with  some  integrity  in  the  exercise  of  their  con- 
sciences, betaken  themselves  to  that  pretended  rest  which  the 
church  of  Rome  offers  them.  For  being  troubled  about  their 
sins,  they  think  it  better  to  betake  themselves  to  that  great 
variety  of  means  for  the  ease  and  discharge  of  their  consciences 
which  the  Roman  church  affords,  than  to  abide  where  they 
are,  without  the  least  pretence  of  relief,  as  men  will  find  in  due 
time,  there  is  no  such  thing  to  be  found  or  obtained  in  them- 
selves. They  may  go  on  for  a  time  with  good  satisfaction  to 
their  own  minds;  but  if  once  they  are  brought  to  a  loss  through 
the  conviction  of  sin,  they  must  look  beyond  themselves  for 
peace  and  satisfaction,  or  sit  down  without  them  to  eternity. 
Nor  are  the  principles  and  ways  which  others  take  up  with  in 
another  extreme  upon  the  rejection  of  this  doctrine,  although 
more  plausible,  yet  at  all  more  really  useful  to  the  souls  of  men, 
than  those  of  the  Roman  church  which  they  reject  as  obsolete, 
and  unsuited  to  the  genius  of  the  present  age.  For  they  all  of 
them  arise  from,  or  lead  to,  the  want  of  a  due  sense  of  the  na- 
ture and  guilt  of  sin,  as  also  of  the  holiness  and  righteousness 
of  God  with  respect  thereto.  And  when  such  principles  as 
these  once  grow  prevalent  in  the  minds  of  men,  they  quickly 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 


83 


grow  careless,  negligent,  secure  in  sinning,  and  end  for  the 
most  part  in  atheism,  or  a  great  indifference  to  all  religion,  and 
all  the  duties  thereof. 


CHAPTER  I. 

JUSTIFYING  FAITH,  THE  CAUSES,  OBJECT,  AND    NATURE  OF  IT,  DECLARED. 

The  means  of  justification  on  our  part  is  faith.  That  we  are 
"justified  by  faith,"  is  so  frequently,  and  so  expressly  aflirmed 
in  the  Scripture,  that  it  cannot  directly  and  in  terms  by  any  be 
denied.  For  whereas  some  begin,  by  an  excess  of  partiality 
to  which  controversial  engagements  and  provocations  incline 
them,  to  affirm  that  our  justification  is  more  frequently  ascribed 
to  other  things,  graces  or  duties,  than  to  faith,  it  is  to  be  passed 
by  in  silence,  and  not  contended  about.  But  yet  also  the  ex- 
planation which  some  others  make  of  this  general  concession, 
That  we  are  justified  by  faith,  does  as  fully  overthrow  what  is 
affirmed  therein,  as  if  it  were  in  terms  rejected.  And  it  would 
more  advantage  the  understandings  of  men,  if  it  were  plainly 
refused  upon  its  first  proposal,  than  to  be  led  about  in  a  maze  of 
words,  and  distinctions  to  its  real  exclusion;  as  is  done  both  by 
the  Romanists  and  Socinians.  At  present  we  may  take  the 
proposition  as  granted,  and  only  inquire  into  the  true  genuine 
sense  and  meaning  of  it.  That  which  first  occurs  to  our  con- 
sideration is  faith;  and  that  which  concerns  it  may  be  reduced 
to  two  heads  :  (1)  Its  nature  ;  (2)  Its  use  in  our  justification. 

Of  the  nature  of  faith  in  general,  of  the  especial  nature  of 
justifying  faith,  of  its  characteristic  distinctions  from  that  which 
is  called  faith,  but  is  not  justifying,  so  many  discourses  (divers 
of  them  the  effects  of  sound  judgment  and  good  experience,) 
are  already  extant,  that  it  is  altogether  needless  to  engage  at 
large  in  a  further  discussion  of  them.  However,  something 
must  be  spoken  to  declare  in  what  sense  we  understand  these 
things;  what  is  that  faith  to  which  we  ascribe  our  justification, 
and  what  is  its  use  therein. 

The  distinctions  that  are  usually  made  concerning  faith,  {as  it 
is  a  word  of  various  significations)  I  shall  wholly  omit;  not  only 
as  obvious  and  known,  but  as  not  belonging  to  our  present  ar- 


84  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

gument.  That  which  we  are  concerned  in  is,  that  in  the  Scrip- 
ture there  is  mention  made  plainly  of  a  twofold  faith,  whereby 
men  believe  the  gospel.  For  there  is  a  faith  whereby  we  are 
justified,  which  he  who  has  shall  be  assuredly  saved,  which 
purifies  the  heart,  and  works  by  love.  And  there  is  a  faith  or 
believing  which  does  nothing  of  all  this;  which  he  who  has, 
and  has  no  more,  is  not  justified,  nor  can  be  saved.  Wherefore 
every  faith,  whereby  men  are  said  to  believe,  is  not  justifying. 
Thus  it  is  said  of  Simon  the  Magician  that  he  "believed,"  Acts 
viii.  13;  when  he  was  "  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bond  of 
iniquity,"  and  therefore  did  not  believe  with  that  faith  which 
purifieth  the  heart,"  Acts  xv.  9.  And,  that  "  many  believed  on 
the  name  of  Jesus  when  they  saw  the  miracles  that  he  did,  but 
Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  unto  them  because  he  knew  what 
was  in  man,"  John  ii.  23,  24.  They  did  not  believe  on  his 
name  as  those  do,  or  with  that  kind  of  faith,  who  thereon  re- 
ceive "power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,"  John  i.  12.  And 
some  when  they  hear  the  word,  receive  it  with  joy,  believing 
for  a  while,  but  have  no  root;  Luke  viii.  13.  And  faith  with- 
out a  root  in  the  heart  will  not  justify  any.  For  "with  the 
heart  men  believe  unto  righteousness,"  Rom.  x.  10.  So  it  is 
with  them  who  shall  cry,  at  the  last  day.  Lord,  Lord,  have 
we  not  prophesied  m  thy  name,  whilst  yet  they  were  always 
"  workers  of  iniquity,"  Matt.  vii.  22,  23. 

This  faith  is  usually  called  historical  faith.  But  this  denomi- 
nation is  not  taken  from  the  object  of  it,  as  though  it  were  only 
the  history  of  the  Scripture,  or  the  historical  things  contained 
in  it.  For  it  respects  the  whole  truth  of  the  word,  yea  of  the 
promises  of  the  gospel  as  well  as  other  things.  But  it  is  so 
called  from  the  nature  of  the  assent  wherein  it  consists.  For 
it  is  such  as  we  give  to  historical  things  that  are  credibly  testi- 
fied to  us. 

And  this  faith  has  divers  difl'erences  or  degrees,  both  in  re- 
spect to  the  grounds  or  reasons  of  it,  and  also  its  effects.  For 
as  to  the  first,  all  faith  is  an  assent  upon  testimony;  and  divine 
faith  is  an  assent  upon  a  divine  testimony.  According  as  this 
testimony  is  received,  so  are  the  differences  or  degrees  of  this 
faith.  Some  apprehend  it  on  human  motives  only,  and  its  cre- 
dibility to  the  judgment  of  reason;  and  their  assent  is  a  mere 
natural  act  of  their  understanding,  which  is  the  lowest  degree 
of  this  historical  faith.  Some  have  their  minds  enabled  to  it  by 
spiritual  illumination,  making  a  discovery  of  the  evidences  of 
divine  truth  whereon  it  is  to  be  believed;  the  assent  they  give 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 


85 


hereon  is  more  firm  and  operative  than  that  of  the  former 
sort. 

Again,  it  has  its  differences  or  degrees  with  respect  to  its  ef- 
fects. With  some  it  no  way  or  very  httle  influences  the  will 
or  the  affections,  or  works  any  change  in  the  lives  of  men.  So 
is  it  with  them  that  profess  they  believe  the  gospel,  and  yet  live 
in  all  manner  of  sins.  In  this  degree  it  is  called  by  the  Apostle 
James,  a  dead  faith,  and  is  compared  to  a  dead  carcass,  without 
hfe  or  motion;  and  it  is  an  assent  of  the  very  same  nature  and 
kind  with  that  which  devils  are  compelled  to  give.  And  this 
faith  abounds  in  the  world.  With  others  it  has  an  effectual 
work  upon  the  affections,  and  that  in  many  degrees  also,  re- 
presented in  the  several  sorts  of  ground  whereinto  the  seed  of 
the  word  is  cast;  and  produces  many  effects  in  their  lives.  In 
the  utmost  improvement  of  it,  both  as  to  the  evidence  it  pro- 
ceeds from,  and  the  effects  it  produces,  it  is  usually  called  tern-  I 
porary  faith',  for  it  is  neither  permanent  against  all  oppositions, 
nor  will  bring  any  to  eternal  rest.  The  name  is  taken  from 
that  expression  of  our  Saviour  concerning  him  who  believes 
with  this  faith,  Tt^ooxo.i^oz  tan,  "  dureth  for  a  while,"  Matt, 
xiii.  21. 

This  faith  I  grant  to  be  true  in  its  kind,  and  not  merely  to  be 
equivocally  so  called  ;  it  is  not  rtiati^  ■^ivhi^vv^oi^,  "  a  faith  falsely 
so  called,"  it  is  so  as  to  the  general  nature  of  faith;  but  of  the 
same  special  nature  with  justifying  faith  it  is  not.  Justifying 
faith  is  not  a  higher,  or  the  highest  degree  of  this  faith,  but  is 
of  another  kind  or  nature.  Wherefore  sundry  things  may  be 
observed  concerning  this  faith  in  the  utmost  improvement  of  it 
to  our  present  purpose.     As, 

1.  This  faith  with  all  the  effects  of  it,  men  may  have,  and  not 
be  justified;  and  if  they  have  not  faith  of  another  kind  they 
cannot  be  justified.  For  justification  is  no  where  ascribed  to 
it,  yea  it  is  affirmed  by  the  Apostle  James,  that  none  can  be 
justified  by  it. 

2.  It  may  produce  great  effects  in  the  minds,  affections,  and 
lives  of  men,  although  not  one  of  those  that  are  peculiar  to 
justifying  faith.  Yet  such  they  may  be,  as  that  those  in  whom 
they  are  wrought  may  be,  and  ought  in  the  judgment  of  chari- 
ty to  be  looked  on  as  true  believers. 

3.  This  is  that  faith  which  may  be  alone.     We  are  justified 
by  faith  alone.     But  we  are  not  justified  by  that  faith  which     , 
can  be  alone.   Alone,  respects  its  influence  on  our  justification, 
not  its  nature  and  existence.     And  we  absolutely  denv  that 

8 


1- 


86  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

we  can  be  justified  by  that  faith  which  can  be  alone,  that  is 
without  a  principle  of  spiritual  life  and  universal  obedience, 
operative  in  all  the  works  of  it,  as  duty  requires. 

These  things  I  have  observed,  only  to  obviate  that  calumny 
and  reproach  which  some  endeavour  to  fix  on  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  only,  through  the  mediation  of  Christ. 
For  those  who  assert  it  must  be  Solifidians,  Antinomians,  and 
1  know  not  what;  such  as  oppose  or  deny  the  necessity  of  uni- 
versal obedience  or  good  works.  Most  of  those  who  manage 
it  cannot  but  know  in  their  own  consciences  that  this  charge  is 
false.  But  this  is  the  way  of  handling  controversies  with  many. 
They  can  aver  any  thing  that  seems  to  advantage  the  cause 
they  plead,  to  the  great  scandal  of  religion.  If  by  Solifidians, 
they  mean  those  who  believe  that  faith  alone  is,  on  our  part, 
the  means,  instrument,  or  condition  (of  which  afterwards)  of 
our  justification,  all  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  were  so,  and 
were  so  taught  by  Jesus  Christ,  as  shall  be  proved.  If  they 
mean,  those  who  affirm  that  the  faith  whereby  we  are  justified 
is  alone,  separate  or  separable  from  a  principle  and  the  fruit  of 
holy  obedience,  they  must  find  them  out  themselves,  we  know 
nothing  of  them.  For  we  allow  no  faith  to  be  of  the  same 
kind  or  nature  with  that  whereby  we  are  justified,  but  what 
virtually  and  radically  contains  in  it  universal  obedience,  as 
the  effect  is  in  the  cause,  the  fruit  in  the  root;  and  which  acts 
itself  in  all  particular  duties,  according  as  bj''  rule  and  circum- 
stances they  are  made  so  to  be.  Yea  we  allow  no  faith  to  be 
justifying,  or  to  be  of  the  same  kind  with  it,  which  is  not  itself 
and  in  its  own  nature  a  spiritually  vital  principle  of  obedience 
and  good  works.  And  if  this  be  Jiot  sufficient  to  prevail  with 
some,  not  to  seek  for  advantages  by  such  shameful  calumnies, 
yet  is  it  so  with  others,  to  free  their  minds  from  any  concern- 
ment in  them. 

For  the  especial  nature  of  justifying  faith  which  we  inquire 
into,  the  things  whereby  it  is  evidenced  may  be  reduced  to 
these  four  heads.  (1)  The  causes  of  it  on  the  part  of  God.  (2) 
What  is  in  us  previously  required  to  it.  (3)  The  proper  object 
of  it.  (4)  Its  proper  peculiar  acts  and  effects.  Which  shall  be 
spoken  to  so  far  as  is  necessary  to  our  present  design. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  the  causes  of  faith  as  to  its  first  original 
ill  the  divine  will,  and  the  way  of  its  communication  to  us,  is 
so  large,  and  so  mixed  with  that  of  the  way  and  manner  of  the 
operation  of  efficacious  grace  in  conversion  (which  I  have  han- 
dled elsewhere)  that  I  shall  not  here  insist  upon  it.     For  as  it 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  87 

cannot  in  a  few  words  be  spoken  to  according  to  its  weight 
and  worth,  so  to  engage  in  a  full  handling  of  it,  would  too 
much  divert  us  from  our  present  argument.  This  I  shall  only- 
say,  that  from  thence  it  may  be  uncontrollably  evidenced,  that 
the  faith  whereby  we  are  justified,  is  of  an  especial  kind  or 
nature  wherein  no  other  faith  which  justification  is  not  insepa- 
rable from,  partakes  with  it. 

2,  Wherefore  our  first  inquiry  is  concerning  what  was  pro- 
posed in  the  second  place,  namely,  what  is  on  our  part,  in  a 
way  of  duty,  previously  required  thereto;  or  what  is  necessary 
to  be  found  in  us  antecedent  to  our  believing  to  the  justifica- 
tion of  life.  And  I  say  there  is  supposed  in  them  in  whom  this 
faith  is  wrought,  on  whom  it  is  bestowed,  and  whose  duty  it 
is  to  believe  therewith,  the  work  of  the  law  in  the  conviction 
of  sin;  or  conviction  of  sin  is  a  necessary  antecedent  to  justify-' 
ing  faith.  Many  have  disputed  what  belongs  hereto,  and  what 
effects  it  produces  in  the  mind,  that  dispose  the  soul  to  the  re- 
ceiving of  the  promise  of  the  gospel.  But  whereas  there  are 
different  apprehensions  about  these  effects  or  concomitants  of 
conviction,  (in  compunction,  humiliation,  self-judging,  with 
sorrow  for  sin  committed,  and  the  like)  as  also  about  the  de- 
grees of  them,  as  ordinarily  prerequired  to  faith  and  conversion 
to  God;  I  shall  speak  very  briefly  to  them,  so  far  as  they  are 
inseparable  from  the  conviction  asserted.  And  I  shall  first  con- 
sider this  conviction  itself,  with  what  is  essential  thereto,  and 
then  the'effects  of  it  in  coiijunction  with  that  temporary  faith 
before  spoken  of.  I  shall  do  so,  not  as  to  their  nature,  the 
knowledge  whereof  I  take  for  granted,  but  only  as  they  have 
respect  to  our  justification. 

As  to  the  first  I  say,  the  work  of  conviction  in  general, 
whereby  the  soul  of  man  has  a  practical  understanding  of  the 
nature  of  sin,  its  guilt  and  the  punishment  due  to  it,  and  is 
made  sensible  of  his  own  interest  therein,  both  with  respect  to 
sin  original  and  actual,  with  his  own  utter  inability  to  deliver 
himself  out  of  the  state  and  condition,  wherein  on  the  account 
of  these  things  he  finds  himself  to  be,  is  that  which  we  affirm 
to  be  antecedently  necessary  to  justifying  faith;  that  is  in  the 
adult,  and  of  whose  justification  the  word  is  the  external  means 
and  instrument. 

A  coriyinced  siimeralone  is  a  subject  capable  of  justification; 
not  that  every  one  that  is  convinced  is  or  must  necessarily  be 
justified.  There  is  not  any  such  disposition  or  preparation  of 
the  subject  by  this  conviction,  its  effects  and  consequences, 


OO  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

as  that  the  form  of  justification,  as  the  Papists  speak,  or  justi- 
fying grace,  must  necessarily  ensue  or  be  introduced  thereon. 
Nor  is  there  any  such  preparation  in  it,  as  that  by  virtue  of 
any  divine  compact  or  promise,  a  person  so  convinced,  shall 
be  pardoned  and  justified.  But  as  a  man  may  believe  with 
any  kind  of  faith  that  is  not  justifying,  such  as  that  before 
mentioned,  without  this  conviction,  so  it  is  ordinarily  and  neces- 
sarily previous  to  that  faith  which  is  to  the  justification  of  life. 
The  motive  to  it,  is  not  that  thereon  a  man  shall  be  assuredly 
justified;  but  that  without  it  he  cannot  be  so. 

This  I  say  is  required  in  the  person  to  be  justified  in  order  of 
nature  antecedent  to  that  faith  whereby  we  are  justified,  which 
we  shall  prove  with  the  ensuing  arguments.  For  (1)  without 
the  due  consideration  and  supposition  of  it,  the  true  nature  of 
faith  can  never  be  understood.  For  as  we  have  showed  before, 
justification  is  God's  way  of  the  deliverance  of  the  convinced 
sinner,  or  one  whose  "mouth  is  stopped,"  and  who  is  "guilty 
before  God,"  obnoxious  to  the  law,  and  shut  up  under  sin. 
A  sense  therefore  of  this  estate  and  all  that  belongs  to  it,  is 
required  to  believing.  Hence  Le  Blanc  who  has  searched 
with  some  diligence  into  these  things,  commends  the  definition 
of  faith  given  by  Mestrezat;  that  it  is  "the  flight  of  a  penitent 
sinner  to  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ."  And  there  is  indeed 
more  sense  and  truth  in  it,  than  in  twenty  other  that  seem 
more  accurate.  But  without  a  supposition  of  the  conviction 
mentioned,  there  is  no  understanding  of  this  definition  of  faith. 
For  it  is  that  alone  which  puts  the  soul  upon  a  flight  to  the 
mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  to  be  saved  from  the  wrath  to  come; 
Heb.  vi.  IS  ;  "  fled  for  refuge." 

2.  The  order,  relation,  and  use  of  the  law  and  the  gospel 
uncontrollably  evince  the  necessity  of  this  conviction  pre- 
viously to  believing.  For  that  which  any  man  has  first  to 
deal  with,  with  respect  to  his  eternal  condition,  both  naturally 
and  by  God's  institution,  is  the  laiv.  This  is  first  presented  to 
the  soul,  with  its  terms  of  righteousness  and  life,  and  with  its 
curse  in  case  of  failure.  Without  this  the  gospel  cannot  be 
understood,  nor  the  grace  of  it  duly  valued.  For  it  is  the  reve- 
lation of  God's  way  for  the  relieving  the  souls  of  men  from  the 
sentence  and  curse  of  the  law,  Rom.  i.  17.  That  was  the 
nature,  that  was  the  tise  and  end  of  the  first  promise,  and  of 
the  whole  work  of  God's  grace  revealed  in  all  the  ensuing 
promises,  or  in  the  whole  gospel.  Wherefore  the  faith  which 
we  treat  of  being  evangelical,  that  which  in  its  especial  nature 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  89 

and  use,  not  the  law  but  the  gospel  requires,  that  which  has 
the  gospel  for  its  principle,  rule,  and  object,  it  is  not  required  of 
us,  cannot  be  acted  by  us,  but  on  a  supposition  of  the  work 
and  effect  of  the  law  in  the  conviction  of  sin,  by  giving  the 
knowledge  of  it,  a  sense  of  its  guilt,  and  the  state  of  the  sinner 
on  the  account  thereof.  And  that  faith  which  has  not  respect 
hereto,  we  absolutely  deny  to  be  that  faith  whereby  we  are 
justified.  Gal.  iii.  22 — 24.  Rom.  x.  4. 

3.  This  our  Saviour  himself  directly  teaches  in  the  gospel. 
For  he  calls  to  him  only  those  who  are  "  weary  and  heavy 
laden,"  affirms  that  "the  whole  have  no  need  of  the  physiciati 
but  the  sick  ;"  and  that  he  "came  not  to  call  the  righteous  but 
sinners  to  repentance."  In  all  which  he  intends  not  those  who 
were  really  sinners,  as  all  men  are,  for  he  makes  a  difference 
between  them,  offering  the  gospel  to  some  and  not  to  others; 
but  such  as  were  convinced  of  sin,  burdened  with  it,  and  sought 
after  deliverance. 

So  those  to  whom  the  Apostle  Peter  proposed  the  promise  of 
the  gospel  with  the  pardon  of  sin,  thereby  as  the  object  of 
gospel  faith,  were  "-pricked  to  the  heart"  upon  the  conviction 
of  their  sin,  and  cried  "  what  shall  we  do?"  Acts  ii.  37 — 39. 
Such  also  was  the  state  of  the  jailor  to  whom  the  Apostle 
Paul  proposed  salvation  by  Christ,  as  what  he  was  to  believe 
for  his  deliverance,  Acts  xvi.  30,  31. 

4.  The  state  of  Adam  and  God's  dealing  with  him  therem, 
is  the  best  representation  of  the  order  and  method  of  these 
things.  As  he  was  after  the  fall,  so  are  we  by  nature  in  the  very 
same  state  and  condition.  Really  he  was  utterly  lost  by  sin, 
and  convinced  he  was  both  of  the  nature  of  his  sin,  and  of  the 
effects  of  it,  in  that  act  of  God  by  the  law  on  his  mind,  which 
is  called  the  opening  of  his  eyes.  For  it  was  nothing  but  the 
communication  to  his  mind  by  his  conscience  of  a  sense  of  the 
nature,  guilt,  effects,  and  consequences  of  sin,  which  the  law 
could  then  teach  him,  and  could  not  do  so  before.  This  fills 
him  with  shame  and  fear;  against  the  former  whereof  he  pro- 
vided by  fig-leaves,  and  against  the  latter  by  hiding  himself 
among  the  trees  of  the  garden.  Nor,  however  they  may  please 
themselves  with  tliem,  are  any  of  the  contrivances  of  men,  for 
freedom  and  safety  from  sin,  either  wiser  or  more  likely  to 
have  success.  In  this  condition,  God  by  an  immediate  inqui- 
sition into  the  matter  of  fact,  sharpens  this  conviction  by  the 
addition  of  his  own  testimony  to  its  truth,  and  casts  him  actually 
under  the  curse  of  the  law,  iix  a  juridical  denunciation  of  it. 

8* 


90  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

Ill  this  lost,  forlorn,  hopeless  condition  God  proposes  the  pro- 
mise of  redemption  by  Christ  to  him.  And  this  was  the  object 
of  that  faith  whereby  he  was  to  be  justified. 

Although  these  things  are  not  thus  eminently  and  distinctly 
transacted  in  the  minds  and  consciences  of  all  who  are  called  to 
believing  by  the  gospel,  yet  for  the  substance  of  them,  and  as 
to  the  previousness  of  the  conviction  of  sin  to  faith,  they  are 
found  in  all  that  sincerely  believe. 

These  things  are  known,  and  for  the  substance  of  them  gener- 
ally agreed  to.  But  yet  are  they  such  as  being  duly  considered 
will  discover  the  vanity  and  mistakes  of  many  definitions  of 
faith  that  are  obtruded  on  us.  For  any  definition  or  description 
of  it,  which  has  not  express,  or  at  least  virtual  respect  hereto, 
is  but  a  deceit,  and  no  way  answers  the  experience  of  them 
that  truly  believe.  And  such  are  all  those  who  place  it  merely  in 
an  assent  to  divine  revelation,  of  what  nature  soever  that  assent 
be,  and  whatever  effects  are  ascribed  to  it.  For  such  an  assent 
there  may  be  without  any  respect  to  this  work  of  the  law. 
Nor  do  I,  to  speak  plainly,  at  all  value  the  most  accurate  dis- 
putations of  any  about  the  nature  and  act  of  justifying  faith, 
who  never  had  in  themselves  an  experience  of  the  work  of  the 
law  in  conviction  and  condemnation  for  sin,  with  the  effects  of 
it  upon  their  consciences;  or  who  omit  the  due  consideration  of 
their  own  experience,  wherein  what  they  truly  believe  is  better 
stated  than  in  all  their  disputations.  That  faith  whereby  we 
are  justified  is  in  general  the  acting  of  the  soul  towards  God, 
as  revealing  himself  in  the  gospel  for  deliverance  out  of  this 
state  and  condition,  or  from  under  the  curse  of  the  law  applied 
to  the  conscience,  according  to  his  mind,  and  by  the  ways  that 
he  has  appointed.  I  give  not  this  as  any  definition  of  faith, 
but  only  express,  what  has  a"  necessary  influence  upon  it, 
whence  the  nature  of  it  may  be  discerned. 

2.  The  effects  of  this  conviction,  with  their  respect  to  our 
justification,  real  or  pretended,  may  also  be  briefly  considered. 
And  whereas  this  conviction  is  a  mere  work  of  the  law,  it  is 
not  with  respect  to  these  effects  to  be  considered  alone,  but  in 
conjunction  with,  and  under  the  conduct  of  that  temporary 
faith  of  the  gospel  before  described.  And  these  two,  tempo- 
rary faitii  and  legal  conviction,  are  the  principles  of  all  works 
or  duties  in  religion  antecedent  to  justification,  and  which 
therefore  we  must  deny  to  have  in  them  any  causality  thereof. 
But  it  is  granted  that  many  acts  and  duties  both  internal  and 
external,  will  ensue  on  real  convictions.     Those  that  are  inter- 


JUSTIFYING  FAITH,  91 

nal  may  be  reduced  to  three  heads.  (1)  Displeasure  and 
sorrow  that  we  have  sinned.  It  is  impossible  that  any  one 
should  be  really  convinced  of  sin  in  the  way  before  declared, 
but  that  a  dislike  of  sin,  and  of  himself  that  he  has  sinned, 
shame  of  it,  and  sorrow  for  it,  will  ensue  thereon.  And  it  is  a 
sufficient  evidence  that  he  is  not  really  convinced  of  sin,  what- 
ever he  profess,  or  whatever  confession  he  make,  whose  mind 
is  not  so  affected,  Jer.  xxxvi.  24,  (2)  Fear  of  punishment  due 
to  sin.  For  conviction  respects  not  only  the  instructive  and 
preceptive  part  of  the  law,  whereby  the  being  and  nature  of 
sin  are  discovered,  but  the  sentence  and  curse  of  it  also,  where- 
by it  is  judged  and  condemned,  Gen.  iv.  13,  14.  Wherefore;, 
where  fear  of  the  punishment  threatened  does  not  ensue,  no 
person  is  really  convinced  of  sin;  nor  has  the  law  had  its  pro- 
per work  towards  him,  as  it  is  previous  to  the  administra- 
tion of  the  gospel.  And  whereas  by  faith  we  "  flee  from  the 
wrath  to  come,"  where  there  is  not  a  sense  and  apprehension 
of  that  wrath  as  due  to  us,  there  is  no  ground  or  reason  for 
our  believing.  (3)  A  desire  of  deliverance  from  that  stale 
wherein  a  convinced  sinner  finds  himself  upon  his  conviction, 
is  unavoidable  to  him.  And  it  is  naturally  the  first  thing  that 
conviction  works  in  the  minds  of  men,  and  that  in  various  de- 
grees of  care,  fear,  soliciiude  and  restlessness,  which  from  ex- 
perience and  the  conduct  of  Scripture  light,  have  been  explained 
by  many,  to  the  great  benefit  of  the  church,  and  sufficiently 
derided  by  others.  (2)  These  internal  acts  of  the  mind  will 
also  produce  sundry  external  duties  which  may  be  referred  to 
two  heads.  (1)  Abstinence  from  known  sin  to  the  utmost  of 
men's  power.  For  they  who  begin  to  find  that  it  is  an  evil 
thing  and  a  bitter  that  they  have  sinned  against  God,  cannot 
but  endeavour  a  future  abstinence  from  it.  And  as  this  has 
respect  to  all  the  former  internal  acts,  as  causes  of  it,  so  it  is  a 
peculiar  consequence  of  the  last  of  them,  the  desire  of  deliver-^, 
ance  from  the  state  wherein  such  persons  are.  For  this  they 
suppose  to  be  the  best  expedient  for  it,  or  at  least  that  without 
which  it  will  not  be.  And  herein  usually  their  spirits  act  by 
promises  and  vows,  with  renewed  sorrow  on  surprisals  into 
sin,  which  will  befall  them  in  that  condition.  (2)  The  duties  of 
religious  worship  in  prayer  and  hearing  of  the  word,  with  dili- 
gence in  the  use  of  the  ordinances  of  the  church,  will  ensue 
hereon.  For  without  these  they  know  that  no  deliverance  is 
to  be  obtained.  Reformation  of  life  and  conversation  in  va- 
rious degrees  partly  consists  in  these  things,  and  partly  follows 


92  JUSTIFYING   FAITH. 

upon  them.     And  these  things  are  always  so,  where  the  con- 
victions of  men  are  real  and  abiding. 

But  yet  it  must  be  said,  that  they  are  neither  severally  nor 
jointly,  though  in  the  highest  degree,  either  necessary  disposi- 
tions, preparations,  previous  congruities  in  a  way  of  merit,  or 
conditions  of  our  justification.     For, 

1.  They  are  not  conditions  of  justification.  For  where  one 
thing  is  the  condition  of  another,  that  other  thing  must  follow 
the  fufiliing  of  that  condition.  Otherwise  it  is  not  the  condition 
of  it.  But  they  may  be  all  found  where  justification  does  not 
ensue.  Wherefore  there  is  no  covenant,  promise,  or  constitu- 
tion of  God,  making  them  to  be  such  conditions  of  justification, 
though  in  their  own  nature  they  may  be  subservient  to  what  is 
required  of  us  with  respect  thereto.  But  a  certain  infallible 
connexion  with  it  by  virtue  of  any  promise  or  covenant  of  God 
(as  it  is  with  faith)  they  have  not.  And  other  condition,  but 
what  is  constituted  and  made  to  be  so  by  divine  compact  or 
promise,  is  not  to  be  allowed.  For  otherwise  conditions  might 
be  endlessly  multiplied,  and  all  things  natural  as  well  as  moral 
made  to  be  so.  So  the  meat  we  eat  may  be  a  condition  of  jus- 
tificatinn.  Faith  and  justification  are  inseparable,  but  so  are 
not  justification  and  the  things  we  now  insist  upon,  as  expe- 
rience evnices. 

2.  Justification  may  be  where  the  outward  acts  and  duties 
mentioned,  proceeding  from  convictions  under  the  conduct  of 
temporary  faith,  are  not.  For  Adam  was  justified  without 
them,  so  also  were  the  converts  in  the  Acts,  chap.  ii.  For 
what  is  reported  concerning  them  is  all  of  it  essentially  included 
in  conviction;  ver.  37.  And  so  likewise  was  it  with  the  jailor; 
Acts  xvi.  30,  31.  And  as  to  many  of  them,  it  is  so  with  most 
that  do  believe.  Therefore  they  are  not  conditions.  For  a 
condition  suspends  the  event  of  that  whereof  it  is  a  condition. 

3.  They  are  not  formal  dispositions  to  justification,  because 
it  consists  not  in  the  introduction  of  any  new  form  or  inherent 
quality  in  the  soul,  as  has  been  in  part  already  declared,  and 
shall  yet  afterwards  be  more  fully  evinced.  Nor  4.  are  they 
moral  preparations  for  it;  for  being  antecedent  to  evangelical 
faith,  no  man  can  have  any  design  in  them,  but  only  to  seek 
for  righteousness  by  the  works  of  the  law,  which  is  no  prepa- 
ration to  justification.  All  discoveries  of  the  righteousness  of 
God,  with  the  soul's  adherence  to  it,  belong  to  faith  alone. 
There  is  indeed  a  repentance  which  accompanies  faith,  and  is 
included  in  the  nature  of  it,  at  least  radically.     This  is  re- 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 


93 


quired  to  our  justification.  But  that  legal  repentance  which 
precedes  gospel  faith  and  is  without  it,  is  neither  a  disposition, 
preparation,  nor  condition  of  our  justification. 

In  brief;  the  order  of  these  things  may  be  observed  in  the 
dealing  of  God  with  Adam,  as  was  before  intimated.  And  there 
are  three  degrees  in  it.  (1)  The  opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  sin- 
ner, to  see  the  filth  and  guilt  of  sin  in  the  sentence  and  curse 
of  the  law  applied  to  his  conscience,  Rom.  vii.  9,  10.  This  ef- 
fects in  the  mind  of  the  sinner  the  things  before  mentioned, 
and  puts  him  upon  all  the  duties  that  spring  from  them.  For 
persons  on  their  first  convictions  ordinarily  judge  no  more  but 
that  their  state  being  evil  and  dangerous,  it  is  their  duty  to 
better  it,  and  that  they  can  or  shall  do  so  accordingly,  if  they 
apply  themselves  to  it.  But  all  these  things  as  to  a  protection 
or  deliverance  from  the  sentence  of  the  law,  are  no  better  than 
fig-leaves  and  hiding.  (2)  Ordinarily  God  by  his  providence, 
or  in  the  dispensation  of  the  word,  gives  life  and  power  to  this 
work  of  the  law  in  a  peculiar  manner;  in  answer  to  the  charge 
which  he  gave  to  Adam  after  his  attempt  to  hide  himself. 
Hereby  the  mouth  of  the  sinner  is  stopped,  and  he  becomes 
thoroughly  sensible  of  his  guilt  before  God,  and  satisfied  that 
there  is  no  relief  or  deliverance  to  be  expected  from  any  of 
those  ways  of  sorrow  or  duty  that  he  has  put  himself  upon. 
(3)  In  this  condition  it  is  a  mere  act  of  sovereign  grace,  with- 
out any  respect  to  these  things  foregoing,  to  call  the  sinner  to 
believing,  or  faith  in  the  promise,  to  the  justification  of  life. 
This  is  God's  order;  yet  so  that  what  precedes  his  call  to  faith, 
has  no  causality  thereof. 

3,  The  next  thing  to  be  inquired  into  is  the  proper  object  of  TTP 
justifying  faith,  or  of  true  faith,  in  its  office,  work  and  duty,  ~ — 
with  respect  to  our  justification.  And  herein  we  must  first 
consider  what  we  cannot  so  well  close  with.  For  besides  other 
ditferences  that  seem  to  be  about  it,  which  indeed  are  but  dif- 
ferent explanations  of  the  same  thing  for  the  substance,  there 
are  two  opinions  which  are  looked  on  as  extremes,  the  one  in 
an  excess  and  the  other  in  defect.  The  first  is  that  of  the  Ro- 
man church,  and  those  who  comply  with  them  therein.  And 
this  is,  that  the  object  of  justifying  faith  as  such,  is  all  divine 
verity,  all  divine  revelation,  whether  written  in  the  Scripture, 
or  delivered  by  tradition  represented  to  us  by  the  authority  of 
the  church.  In  the  latter  part  of  this  description  we  are  not  at 
present  concerned.  That  the  whole  Scripture  and  all  the  parts 
of  it,  and  all  the  truths  of  what  sort  soever  they  be  that  are  con- 


94  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

tained  in  it,  are  equally  the  object  of  faith  in  the  discharge  of 
its  office  in  our  justification,  is  that  which  they  maintain.  Hence 
as  to  the  nature  of  it  they  cannot  allow  it  to  consist  in  any 
thing  but  an  assent  of  the  mind.  For  supposing  the  whole  Scrip- 
ture, and  all  contained  in  it,  laws,  precepts,  promises,  threaten- 
ings,  stories,  prophecies,  and  the  like,  to  be  the  object  of  it,  and 
these  not  as  containing  in  them  tilings  good  or  evil  to  us,  but 
under  this  formal  consideration  as  divinely  revealed,  they  can- 
not assign  or  allow  any  other  act  of  the  mind  to  be  required 
hereto,  but  assent  only.  And  so  confident  are  they  herein, 
namely,  that  faith  is  no  more  than  an  assent  to  divine  revela- 
tion, as  that  Bellarmine  in  opposition  to  Calvin,  who  placed 
knowledge  in  the  description  of  justifying  faith,  affirms  that 
it  is  better  defined  by  ignorance  than  by  knowledge. 

This  description  of  justifying  faith  and  its  object,  has  been  so 
discussed,  and  on  such  evident  grounds  of  Scripture  and  reason 
rejected  by  Protestant  writers  of  all  sorts,  that  it  is  needless  to 
insist  mucli  upon  it  again.  Some  things  I  shall  observe  in  re- 
lation to  it,  whereby  we  may  discover  what  is  of  truth  in  what 
they  assert,  and  wherein  it  falls  short  thereof.  Neither  shall  I 
respect  only  them  of  the  Roman  church,  who  require  no  more 
to  faith  or  believing,  but  only  a  bare  assent  of  the  mind  to  di- 
vine revelations,  but  them  also  who  place  it  wholly  in  such 
a  firm  assent  as  produces  obedience  to  all  divine  commands. 
For  as  it  does  both  these,  as  both  these  are  included  in  it,  so 
to  the  especial  nature  of  it  more  is  required.  It  is,  as  justifying, 
neither  a  mere  assent,  nor  any  such  firm  degree  of  it,  as  should 
produce  such  effects. 

1.  All  faith  whatever  is  an  act  of  that  power  of  our  souls  in 
general,  whereby  we  are  able  firmly  to  assent  to  the  truth  upon 
testimony,  in  things  not  evident  to  us  by  sense  or  reason.  It  is 
"  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen."  And  all  divine  faith  is  in 
general  an  assent  to  the  truth  that  is  proposed  to  us  upon  divine 
testimony.  And  hereby,  as  it  is  commonly  agreed,  it  is  dis- 
tinguished from  opinion  and  moral  certainty  on  the  one  hand, 
and  science  or  demonstration  on  the  other. 

2.  Wherefore  in  justifying  faith,  there  is  an  assent  to  all  di- 
vine revelation  upon  the  testimony  of  God  the  revealer.  By 
no  other  act  of  our  mind,  wherein  this  is  not  included  or  sup- 
posed, can  we  be  justified;  not  because  it  is  not  justifying,  but 
because  it  is  not  faith.  This  assent  I  say  is  included  in  justi- 
fying taith.  And  therefore  we  find  it  often  spoken  of  in  the 
Scripture  (the  instances  whereof  are  gathered  up  by  Bellarmine 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  95 

and  others,)  with  respect  to  other  things,  and  not  restrained  to 
the  especial  promise  of  grace  in  Christ,  which  is  that  which 
they  oppose.  But  besides,  that  in  most  places  of  that  kind, 
the  proper  object  of  faith  as  justifying  is  included  and  ultimate- 
ly referred  to,  though  diversely  expressed  by  some  of  its  causes 
or  concomitant  adjuncts,  it  is  granted  that  we  believe  all  divine 
truth,  with  that  very  faith  whereby  we  are  justified,  so  that 
other  things  may  well  be  ascribed  to  it. 

3.  On  these  concessions  we  yet  say  two  things,  (1)  That  the 
whole  nature  of  justifying  faith  does  not  consist  merely  in  an 
assent  of  the  mind,  be  it  never  so  firm  and  steadfast,  nor  what- 
ever effects  of  obedience  it  may  produce.  (2)  That  in  its  duty 
and  office  in  justification,  whence  it  has  that  especial  denomi- 
nation, which  alone  we  are  in  the  explanation  of,  it  does  not 
equally  respect  all  divine  revelation  as  such,  but  has  a  peculiar 
object  proposed  to  it  in  the  Scripture.  And  whereas  both  these 
will  be  immediately  evinced  in  our  description  of  the' proper 
object  and  nature  of  faith,  I  shall  at  present  oppose  some  few 
things  to  this  description  of  them,  sufficient  to  manifest  how 
foreign  it  is  from  the  truth. 

1.  This  assent  is  an  act  of  the  understanding  only;  an  act 
of  the  mind  with  respect  to  truth  evidenced  to  it,  be  it  of  what 
nature  it  will.  So  we  believe  the  worst  of  things  and  the  most 
grievous  to  us,  as  well  as  the  best  and  the  most  useful.  But 
believing  is  an  act  of  the  heart,  which  in  the  Scripture  com- 
prises all  the  faculties  of  the  soul,  as  one  entire  principle  of 
moral  and  spiritual  duties.  "  With  the  heart  man  believeth 
unto  righteousness,"  Rom.  x.  10.  And  it  is  frequently  de- 
scribed by  an  act  of  the  will,  though  it  be  not  so  alone.  But 
without  an  act  of  the  will  no  man  can  believe  as  he  ought.  See 
John  V.  40.  John  i.  12.  chap.  vi.  35.  We  come  to  Christ  in  an 
act  of  the  will,  and  let  "  whosoever  will"  come.  And  to  "be 
willing"  is  taken  for  to  believe,  Psal.  ex.  3,  and  "unbelief"  is 
disobedience,  Heb.  iii.  18,  19. 

2.  All  divine  truth  is  equally  the  object  of  this  assent.  It 
respects  not  the  especial  nature  or  use  of  any  one  truth,  be  it 
of  what  kind  it  will,  more  than  another;  nor  can  it  do  so, 
since  it  regards  only  divine  revelation.  Hence  that  Judas  was 
the  traitor  must  have  as  great  an  influence  upon  our  justifica- 
tion, as  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins.  But  how  contrary  this 
is  to  the  Scripture,  the  analogy  of  faith,  and  the  experience  of 
all  that  believe,  needs  neither  declaration  nor  confirmation. 

3.  This  assent  to  all  divine  revelation  may  be  true  and  sin- 


i 


96  JUSTIFVING    FAITH. 

cere,  where  there  has  been  no  previous  work  of  the  law,  nor 
any  conviction  of  sin.  No  such  thing  is  required  thereto,  nor 
are  they  found  in  many  who  yet  do  so  assent  to  the  truth. 
But,  as  we  have  showed,  this  is  necessary  to  evangehcal  justi- 
fying faith;  and  to  suppose  the  contrary  is  to  overthrow  the 
order  and  use  of  the  law  and  gospel,  with  their  mutual  relation 
to  one  another  in  subservience  to  the  design  of  God  in  the  sal- 
vation of  sinners. 

4.  It  is  not  a  way  of  seeking  relief  to  a  convinced  sinner, 
whose  mouth  is  stopped,  in  that  he  is  become  guilty  before 
God.  Such  alone  are  capable  subjects  of  justification,  and  do 
or  can  seek  after  it  in  a  due  manner.  A  mere  assent  to  divine 
revelation  is  not  peculiarly  suited  to  give  such  persons  relief. 
For  it  is  that  which  brings  them  into  that  condition,  from 
whence  they  are  to  be  relieved.  For  the  knowledge  of  sin  is 
by  the  law.  But  faith  is  a  peculiar  acting  of  the  soul  for  de- 
liverance. 

5.  It  is  no  more  than  what  the  devils  themselves  have,  as  the 
Apostle  James  affirms.  For  that  instance  of  their  believing 
one  God,  proves  that  they  believe  also  whatever  this  one  God, 
who  is  the  first  essential  truth,  reveals,  to  be  true.  And  it 
may  consist  with  all  manner  of  wickedness,  and  without  any 
obedience;  and  so  make  God  a  liar,  1  John  ii.  4.  And  it  is  no 
wonder  if  men  deny  us  to  be  justified  by  faith,  who  know  no 
other  faith  but  this. 

6.  It  no  way  answers  the  descriptions  that  are  given  of  jus- 
tifying faith  in  the  Scripture.  Particularly  it  is  by  faith  as  it 
is  justifying  that  we  are  said  to  "receive  Christ;"  John  i.  12. 
Col.  ii.  6.  To  receive  the  promise,  the  word,  the  grace  of  God, 
the  atonement,  James  i.  21.  John  iii.  33.  Acts  ii.  41,  chap.  xi. 
1.  Rom.  V.  11.  Heb.  xi.  17.  To  cleave  unto  God,  Deut.  iv. 
4.  Acts  xi.  23.  And  so  in  the  Old  Testament  it  is  generally 
expressed  by  trust  and  hope.  Now  none  of  these  things  are 
contained  in  a  mere  assent  to  the  truth;  but  they  require 
other  actings  of  the  soul  than  what  are  peculiar  to  the  under- 
standing only. 

7.  It  answers  not  the  experience  of  them  that  truly  believe. 
This  all  our  inquiries  and  arguments  in  this  matter  must  have 
respect  to.  For  the  sum  of  what  we  aim  at,  is  only  to  discover 
what  they  do,  who  really  believe  to  the  justification  of  life.  It 
is  not  what  notions  men  may  have  hereof,  nor  how  they  ex- 
press their  conceptions,  how  defensible  they  are  against  objec- 
tions by  accuracy  of  expressions  and  subtile  distinctions ;  but 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 


97 


only  what  we  ourselves  do,  if  we  truly  believe,  that  we  inquire 
after.  And  although  our  differences  about  it  argue  the  great 
imperfection  of  that  state  wherein  we  are,  so  that  those  who 
truly  believe  cannot  agree  what  they  do  in  their  so  doing, 
which  should  give  us  a  mutual  tenderness  and  forbearance  to- 
wards each  other;  yet  if  men  would  attend  to  their  own  expe- 
rience in  the  application  of  their  souls  to  God,  for  the  pardon 
of  sin  and  righteousness  to  life,  more  than  to  the  notions  which 
on  various  occasions  their  minds  are  influenced  by,  or  prepos- 
sessed with,  many  differences  and  unnecessary  disputations 
about  the  nature  of  justifying  faith  would  be  prevented  or  cut 
off.  I  deny  therefore  that  this  general  assent  to  the  truth,  how* 
firm  soever  it  be,  or  what  effects  in  the  way  of  duty  or  obe- 
dience soever  it  may  produce,  answers  the  experience  of  any 
one  true  believer,  as  containing  the  entire  actings  of  his  soul 
towards  God  for  pardon  of  sin  and  justification. 

8.  That  faith  alone  is  justifying  which  has  justification  ac- 
tually accompanying  it.  For  thence  alone  it  has  that  deno- 
mination. To  suppose  a  man  to  have  justifying  faith,  and  not 
to  be  justified,  is  to  suppose  a  contradiction.  Nor  do  we  in- 
quire after  the  nature  of  any  other  faith  but  that  whereby  a 
believer  is  actually  justified.  But  it  is  not  so  with  all  them  in 
whom  this  assent  is  found ;  nor  will  those  that  plead  for  it,  allow 
that  upon  it  alone  any  are  immediately  justified.  Wherefore  it  is  / 
sulliciently  evident  that  there  is  somewhat  more  required  to  jus-  / 
tifying  faith,  than  a  real  assent  to  all  divine  revelations,  although 
we  give  that  assent  by  the  faith  whereby  we  are  justified. 

But  on  the  other  side,  it  is  supposed  that,  by  some,  the  object 
of  justifying  faith  is  so  much  restrained,  and  the  nature  of  it 
thereby  determined  to  such  a  peculiar  acting  of  the  mind,  as 
comprises  not  the  whole  of  what  is  in  the  Scripture  ascribed  to 
it.  So  some  have  said,  that  it  is  the  pardon  of  our  sins  in  par- 
ticular that  is  the  object  of  justifying  faith;  faith  therefore  they 
make  to  be  a  full  persuasion  of  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins 
through  the  mediation  of  Christ;  or  that  what  Christ  did  and 
suffered  as  our  mediator,  he  did  for  us  in  particular.  And  a 
particular  application  of  especial  mercy  to  our  own  souls  and 
consciences  is  hereby  made  the  essence  of  faith.  Or  to  believe 
that  our  own  sins  are  forgiven,  seems  hereby  to  be  the  first 
and  most  proper  act  of  justifying  faith.  Hence  it  would  follow 
that  whosoever  does  not  believe,  or  has  not  a  firm  persuasion 
of  the  forgiveness  of  his  own  sins  in  particular,  has  no  saving 
faith,  is  no  true  believer;  which  is  by  no  means  to  be  admitted. 

9 


98  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

And  if  any  have  been  or  are  of  this  opinion,  I  fear  that  they 
were  in  the  asserting  of  it,  neghgent  of  their  own  experience; 
or  it  may  be  rather,  that  they  knew  not  how  in  their  experience 
all  the  other  actings  of  faith,  wherein  its  essence  consists,  were 
inclnded  in  this  persuasion,  which  in  an  especial  manner  they 
aimed  at;  whereof  we  shall  speak  afterwards.  And  there  is 
no  doubt  to  me  but  that  this  which  they  propose,  faith  is  suited 
to,  aims  at,  and  ordinarily  effects  in  true  believers,  who  im- 
prove it,  and  grow  in  its  exercise  in  a  due  manner. 

Many  great  divines  at  the  first  Reformation,  did  (as  the  Lu- 
therans generally  yet  do)  thus  make  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ, 
and  thereby  the  forgiveness  of  our  own  sins,  to  be  the  proper 
object  of  justifying  faith,  as  such;  whose  essence  therefore 
they  placed  in  a  fiducial  trust  in  the  grace  of  God  by  Christ 
declared  in  the  promises,  with  a  certain  unwavering  applica- 
tion of  them  to  ourselves.  And  I  say  with  some  confidence, 
that  those  who  endeavour  not  to  attain  to  this,  either  under- 
stand not  the  nature  of  believing,  or  are  very  negligent  both 
of  the  grace  of  God,  and  of  their  own  peace. 

That  which  inclined  those  great  and  holy  persons  so  to  ex- 
press themselves  in  this  matter,  and  to  place  the  essence  of  faith 
in  the  highest  acting  of  it,  (wherein  yet  they  always  included 
and  supposed  its  other  acts)  was  the  state  of  the  consciences 
of  men  with  whom  they  had  to  do.  Their  contest  in  this  arti- 
cle with  the  Roman  Church,  was  about  the  way  and  means 
whereby  the  consciences  of  convinced  troubled  sinners  might 
come  to  rest  and  peace  with  God.  For  at  that  time  they  were 
no  otherwise  instructed,  but  tb.at  these  things  were  to  be  ob- 
tained, not  only  by  works  of  righteousness  which  men  did 
themselves  in  obedience  to  the  commands  of  God,  but  also  by 
the  strict  observance  of  many  inventions  of  what  they  called 
the  church;  with  an  ascription  of  a  strange  efficacy  to  the  same 
ends,  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  sacraments,  absohitions,  pe- 
nances, pilgrimages,  and  other  the  like  superstitions.  Hereby 
they  observed  that  the  consciences  of  men  were  kept  in  perpe- 
tual disquietments,  perplexities,  fears  and  bondage,  exclusive 
of  that  rest,  assurance,  and  peace  with  God  through  the  blood 
of  Christ,  which  the  gospel  proclaims  and  tenders.  And  when 
the  leaders  of  the  people  in  that  church  had  observed  this,  that 
indeed  the  ways  and  means  which  they  proposed  and  present- 
ed, would  never  bring  the  souls  of  men  to  rest,  nor  give  them 
the  least  assurance  of  the  pardon  of  sins,  they  made  it  a  part 
of  their  doctrine,  that  the  belief  of  the  pardon  of  our  own  sins, 


JUSTIFYING    FAITU.  99 

and  assurance  of  the  love  of  God  in  Christ,  were  false  and  per- 
nicious. For  what  should  they  else  do,  when  they  knew  well 
enough,  that  in  their  way,  and  by  their  propositions  they  were 
not  to  be  attained?  Hence  the  principal  controversy  in  this 
matter  which  the  reformed  divines  had  with  those  of  the  church 
of  Rome  was  this,  whether  there  be  according  to  and  by  the 
gospel,  a  state  of  rest  and  assured  peace  with  God  to  be  at- 
tained in  this  life.  And  having  all  advantages  imaginable  for 
the  proof  hereof,  from  the  very  nature,  nse,  and  end  of  the 
gospel,  from  the  grace,  love,  and  design  of  God  in  Christ,  from 
the  efficacy  of  his  mediation  in  his  oblation  and  intercession, 
they  assigned  these  things  to  be  the  especial  object  of  justifying' 
faith,  and  that  faith  itself  to  be  a  fiducial  trust  in  the  especial  ( 
grace.and  mercy  of  God,  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  pro- 
posed in  the  promises  of  the  gospel.  That  is,  they  directed 
the  souls  of  men  to  seek  for  peace  with  God,  the  pardon  of  sin, 
and  a  right  to  the  heavenly  inheritance,  by  placing  their  sole 
trust  and  confidence  in  the  mercy  of  God  by  Christ  alone.  But 
yet  withal  I  never  read  any  of  them,  (I  know  not  what  others 
have  done,)  who  affirmed  that  every  true  and  sincere  be- 
liever always  had  a  full  assurance  of  the  especial  love  of  God 
in  Christ,  or  of  the  pardon  of  his  own  sins;  though  they  plead 
that  this  the  Scripture  requires  of  them  in  a  way  of  duty,  and 
that  this  they  ought  to  aim  at  the  attainment  of 

And  these  things  I  shall  leave  as  I  find  them,  to  the  use  of 
the  church.  For  I  shall  not  contend  with  any  about  the  way 
and  manner  of  expressing  the  truth,  where  the  substance  of  it 
is  retained.  That  which  in  these  things  is  aimed  at,  is  the  ad- 
vancement and  glory  of  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  with  the 
conduct  of  the  souls  of  men  to  rest  and  peace  with  him.  Where 
this  is  attained  or  aimed  at,  and  that  in  the  way  of  truth  for 
the  substance  of  it,  variety  of  apprehensions  and  expressions 
concerning  the  same  things,  may  tend  to  the  useful  exercise  of 
the  faith  and  edification  of  the  church.  Wherefore  neither  op- 
posing nor  rejecting  what  has  been  delivered  by  others  as  their 
judgments  herein,  I  shall  propose  my  own  thoughts  concerning 
it;  not  without  some  hopes  that  they  may  tend  to  communicate 
light  in  the  knowledge  of  the  thing  itself  inquired  into,  and  the 
reconciliation  of  some  differences  about  it  amongst  learned  and 
holy  men.  I  say  therefore,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself, 
as  the  ordinance  of  God  in  his  work  of  mediation  for  the  reco- 
very and  salvation  of  lost  sinners,  and  as  to  that  end  proposed 
in  the  promise  of  the  gospel,  is  the  adequate  proper  object  of 


100  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

justifying  faith,  or  of  saving  faith  in  its  work  and  duty  with 
respect  to  our  justification. 

The  reason  why  I  thus  state  the  object  of  justifying  faith,  is 
because  it  completely  answers  all  that  is  ascribed  to  it  in  the 
Scripture,  and  all  that  the  nature  of  it  requires.  What  belongs 
to  it  as  faith  in  general  is  here  supposed;  and  what  is  peculiar 
to  it  as  justifying,  is  fully  expressed.  And  a  few  things  will 
serve  for  the  explication  of  the  thesis  which  shall  afterwards 
be  confirmed. 

1.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself  is  asserted  to  be  the  pro- 
per object  of  justifying  faith.  For  so  it  is  required  in  all 
those  testimonies  of  Scripture  where  that  faith  is  declared  to 
be  our  "believing  in  him,  on  his  name,^' our  "receiving  of 
him,  or  looking  to  him,"  to  which  the  promise  of  justification 
and  eternal  life  is  annexed;  whereof  afterwards.  See  John  i. 
12.;  iii.  16,  36.;  vi.  29,  47.;  vii.  38.;  XV.  25.  Acts  x.  41.  Acts 
xiii.  38,  39.  Acts  xvi.  31.  Acts  xxvi.  18.,  &c. 

2.  He  is  not  proposed  as  the  object  of  our  faith  to  the  justi- 
fication of  life  absolutely,  but  as  the  ordinance  of  God  even 
the  Father  to  that  end,  who  therefore  also  is  the  immediate 
object  of  faith  as  justifying;  in  what  resjjects  we  shall  declare 
immediately.  So  justification  is  frequently  ascribed  to  faith  as 
peculiarly  acted  on  him,  John.  v.  24.  "He  that  believeth  on 
him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into 
judgment,  but  is  passed  from  death  into  life."  And  herein  is 
comprised  that  grace,  love  and  favour  of  God,  which  is  the 
principal  moving  cause  of  our  justification,  Rom.  iii.  23,  24. 
Add  hereto,  John  vi.  29.  and  the  object  of  faith  is  complete. 
"  This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he 
hath  sent."  God  the  Father  as  sending,  and  the  Son  as  sent, 
that  is,  Jesus  Christ  in  the  work  of  his  mediation,  as  the  ordi- 
nance of  God  for  the  recovery  and  salvation  of  lost  sinners,  is 
the  object  of  our  faith.  See  1  Pet,  i.  21. 

3.  That  he  maybe  the  object  of  our  faith,  whose  general  na- 
ture consists  in  assent,  which  is  the  foundation  of  all  its  other  acts, 
he  is  proposed  in  the  promises  of  the  gospel,  which  I  therefore 
place  as  concurring  to  its  complete  object.  Yet  do  I  not  herein 
consider  the  promises  merely  as  peculiar  divine  revelations,  in 
which  sense  they  belong  to  the  formal  object  of  faith ;  but  as  they 
contain,  propose,  and  exhibit  Christ  as  the  ordinance  of  God  and 
the  benefits  of  his  mediation  to  them  that  believe.  There  is 
an  especial  assent  to  the  promises  of  the  gospel,  wherein  some 
place  the  nature  and  essence  of  justifying  faith,  or  of  faith  in 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  101 

its  work  and  duty  with  respect  to  our  justification.  And  so 
they  make  the  promises  of  the  gospel  to  be  the  proper  object 
of  it.  And  it  cannot  be,  but  that  in  the  actings  of  justifying 
faith  there  is  a  peculiar  assent  to  them.  Howbeit  this  being 
only  an  act  of  the  mind,  neither  the  whole  nature  nor  the 
whole  work  of  faith  can  consist  therein.  Wherefore  so  far  as 
the  promises  concur  to  the  complete  object  of  faith,  they  are 
considered  materially  also,  namely,  as  they  contain,  propose, 
and  exhibit  Christ  to  believers.  And  in  that  sense  are  they 
frequently  affirmed  in  the  Scripture  to  be  the  object  of  our  faith 
to  the  justification  of  life.  Acts  ii,  39.  Acts  xxvi.  6.  Rom.  iv.  16, 
20.;  XV.  8.  Gal.  iii.  16,  18.   Heb.  iv.  1.;  vi.  13.;  viii.  6.;  x.  36. 

4.  The  end  for  which  the  Lord  Christ,  in  the  work  of  his 
mediation,  is  the  ordinance  of  God,  and  as  such  proposed  in 
the  promises  of  the  gospel,  namely,  the  recovery  and  salvation 
of  lost  sinners,  belongs  to  the  object  of  faith  as  justifying. 
Hence  the  forgiveness  of  sin  and  eternal  life  are  proposed  m 
the  Scripture  as  things  that  are  to  be  believed  to  justification, 
or  as  the  object  of  our  faith,  Matth.  ix.  2.  Acts  ii.  38,  39.;  v.  31.; 
xxvi.  18.  Rom.  iii.  25.;  iv.  7,  S.  Col.  ii.  13.  Tit.  i.  2.,  &c.  And 
whereas  the  just  is  to  live  by  his  faith,  and  every  one  is  to 
believe  for  himself,  or  make  an  application  of  the  things  be- 
lieved to  his  own  behoof,  some  from  hence  have  affirmed  the 
pardon  of  our  own  sins,  and  our  own  salvation  to  be  the  pro- 
per object  of  faith,  and  indeed  it  does  belong  thereto,  when  in 
the  way  and  order  of  God  and  the  gospel,  we  can  attain  to  it, 
1  Cor.  XV.  3,  4.  Gal.  ii.  20.  Ephes.  i.  6,  7. 

Wherefore  asserting  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  work  of 
his  mediation  to  be  the  object  of  faith  to  justification,  I  include 
therein  the  grace  of  God  which  is  the  cause,  the  pardon  of  sin 
which  is  the  effect,  and  the  promises  of  the  gospel  which  are 
the  means,  of  communicating  Christ  and  the  benefit  of  his 
mediation  to  us. 

And  all  these  things  are  so  united,  so  intermixed  in  their 
mutual  relations  and  respects,  so  concatenated  in  the  purpose 
of  God,  and  the  declaration  made  of  his  will  in  the  gospel,  that 
the  believing  of  any  one  of  them  virtually  includes  the  belief  of 
the  rest.  And  they  by  whom  any  one  of  them  is  disbelieved, 
frustrate  and  make  void  all  the  rest,  and  so  faiih  itself. 

The  due  consideration  of  these  things  solves  all  the  difficul- 
ties that  arise  about  the  nature  of  faith,  either  from  the  Scrip- 
ture, or  from  the  experience  of  them  that  believe,  with  respect 
to  its  object.     Many  things  in  the   Scripture  are  we  said  to 

9* 


102  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

believe  with  it  and  by  it,  and  that  to  justification.  But  two 
things  are  hence  evident.  (1)  That  no  one  of  them  can  be 
asserted  to  be  the  complete  adequate  object  of  our  faith. 
(2)  That  none  of  them  are  so  absolutely,  but  as  they  relate  to 
the  Lord  Christ,  as  the  ordinance  of  God  for  our  justification 
and  salvation. 

And  this  answers  the  experience  of  all  that  truly  believe. 
For  these  things  being  united  and  made  inseparable  in  the  con- 
stitution of  God,  all  of  them  are  virtually  included  in  every  one 
of  them.  (1)  Some  fix  their  faith  and  trust  principally  on  the 
grace,  love,  and  mercy  of  God;  especially  they  did  so  under 
the  Old  Testament  before  the  clear  revelation  of  Christ  and  his 
mediation.  So  did  the  Psalmist,  Psal.  cxxx.  34.  Psal.  xxxiii. 
18,  19.  And  the  publican,  Luke  xviii.  13.  And  these  are  in 
places  of  the  Scripture  innumerable  proposed  as  the  causes  of 
our  justification.  See  Rom.  iii.  24.  Ephes.  ii.  4,  5,  6,  7,  8. 
Tit.  iii.  5,  6,  7.  But  this  they  do  not  absolutely,  but  with  re- 
spect to  the  redemption  that  is  in  the  blood  of  Christ;  Dan. 
ix.  17.  Nor  does  the  Scripture  any  where  propose  them  to 
us,  but  under  that  consideration.  See  Rom.  iii.  24,  25.  Ephes. 
i.  6,  7,  8.  For  this  is  the  cause,  way,  and  means  of  the  com- 
munication of  that  grace,  love,  and  mercy  to  us.  (2)  Some 
place  and  fix  them  principally  on  the  Lord  Christ,  his  media- 
tion and  the  benefits  thereof  This  the  Apostle  Paul  proposes 
frequently  to  us  in  his  own  example.  See  Gal.  ii.  20.  Phil, 
iii.  S,  9,  10.  But  this  they  do  not  absolutely,  but  with  respect 
to  the  grace  and  love  of  God,  whence  it  is  that  they  are  given 
and  commimicated  to  us,  Rom.  viii.  32.  John  iii.  16.  Ephes. 
i.  6,  7,  8.  Nor  are  they  otherwise  any  where  proposed  to  us  in 
the  Scripture  as  the  object  of  our  faith  to  justification.  (3)  Some 
in  a  peculiar  manner  fix  their  souls  in  believing  on  the  promises. 
And  this  is  exemplified  in  the  instance  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xv. 
16.  Rom.  iv.  20.  And  so  are  they  proposed  in  the' Scripture  as 
the  object  of  our  faith.  Acts  ii.  39.  Rom.  iv.  16.  Heb.  iv.  1,  2; 
chap.  vi.  12,  13.  But  this  they  do  not  merely  as  they  are  di- 
viue  revelations,  but  as  they  contain  and  propose  to  us  the 
Lord  Christ  and  the  benefits  of  his  mediation,  from  the  grace, 
love,  and  mercy  of  God.  Hence  the  Apostle  disputes  at  large 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  that  if  justification  be  any  way 
but  by  the  promise,  both  the  grace  of  God  and  the  death  of 
Christ  are  evacuated  and  made  of  none  effect.  And  the  reason 
is,  because  the  promise  is  nothing  but  the  way  and  means  of 
the  communication  of  them  to  us.     (4)  Some  fix  their  faith  on 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 


103 


the  things  themselves  which  they  aim  at;  namely,  the  pardon 
of  sin  and  eternal  life.  And  these  also  in  the  Scripture  are 
proposed  to  us  as  the  object  of  our  faith,  or  that  which  we 
are  to  believe  to  justification.  Psalm  cxxx.  4.  Acts  xxvi.  18. 
Tit.  i.  2.  But  this  is  to  be  done  in  its  proper  order,  especially 
as  to  the  application  of  them  to  our  own  souls.  For  we  are 
no  where  required  to  believe  them,  or  our  own  interest  in 
them,  but  as  they  are  effects  of  grace,  and  love  of  God,  through 
Christ  and  his  mediation  proposed  in  the  promises  of  the  gospel. 
Wherefore  the  belief  of  them  is  included  in  the  belief  of  these, 
and  is  in  order  of  nature  antecedent  thereto.  And  the  belief  of 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  eternal  life,  without  the  due  exer- 
cise of  faith  in  those  causes  of  them,  is  but  presumption. 

I  have  therefore  given  the  entire  object  of  faith  as  justifying, 
or  in  its  work  and  duty  with  respect  to  our  justification,  in  com- 
pliance with  the  testimonies  of  the  Scripture  and  the  experience 
of  them  that  believe. 

Allowing  therefore  their  proper  place  to  the  promises,  and 
to  the  effect  of  all  in  the  pardon  of  sins  and  eternal  life;  that 
which  I  shall  further  confirm,  is,  that  the  Lord  Christ  in  the 
work  of  his  mediation,  as  the  ordinance  of  God  for  the  reco- 
very and  salvation  of  lost  sinners,  is  the  proper  adequate  ob- 
ject of  justifying  faith.  And  the  true  nature  of  evangelical 
faith  consists  in  the  respect  of  the  heart  (which  we  shall  im- 
mediately describe)  to  the  love,  grace,  and  wisdom  of  God, 
with  the  mediation  of  Christ,  in  his  obedience,  with  the  sacri- 
fice, satisfaction,  and  atonement  for  sin  which  he  made  by  his 
blood.  These  things  are  impiously  opposed  by  some  as  incon- 
sistent. For  the  second  head  of  the  Socinian  impiety  is,  that 
the  grace  of  God,  and  satisfaction  of  Christ  are  opposite  and 
inconsistent,  so  that  if  we  allow  of  the  one  we  must  deny  the 
other.  But  as  these  things  are  so  proposed  in  the  Scripture, 
that  without  granting  them  both,  neither  can  be  believed  ;  so 
faith  which  respects  them  as  subordinate,  namely,  the  media- 
tion of  Christ  to  the  grace  of  God,  that  fixes  itself  on  the  Lord 
Christ  and  that  redemption  which  is  in  his  blood,  as  the  ordi- 
nance of  God,  the  effect  of  his  wisdom,  grace  and  love,  finds 
rest  in  both,  and  in  nothing  else. 

For  the  proof  of  the  assertion  I  need  not  labour  in  it;  it  be- 
ing not  only  abundantly  declared  in  the  Scripture,  but  that 
which  contains  in  it  a  principal  part  of  the  design  and  substance 
of  the  gospel.  I  shall  therefore  only  refer  to  some  of  the  places 
wherein  it  is  taught,  or  the  testimonies  that  are  given  to  it. 


104  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

The  whole  is  expressed  in  that  place  of  the  Apostle  wherein 
the  doctrine  of  justification  is  most  eminently  proposed  to  us, 
Rom.  iii.  24,  25:  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus;  whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood;  to  declare 
his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Whereto  we  may 
add,  Ephes.  i.  6,  7.  "  He  hath  made  us  accepted  in  the  beloved, 
in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  according  to 
the  riches  of  his  grace."  That  whereby  we  are  justified  is  the 
especial  object  of  our  faith  to  justification.  But  this  is  the 
Lord  Christ  in  the  work  of  his  mediation.  For  we  are  justified 
by  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ;  for  in  him  we  have 
redemption  through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sin. 
Christ  as  a  propitiation  is  the  cause  of  our  justification,  and 
the  object  of  our  faith,  or  we  attain  it  by  faith  in  his  blood. 
But  this  is  so  under  this  formal  consideration,  as  he  is  the  ordi- 
nance of  God  for  that  end  appointed,  given,  proposed,  set  forth 
from  and  by  the  grace,  wisdom,  and  love  of  God.  God  set 
him  forth  to  be  a  propitiation.  He  makes  us  accepted  in  the 
beloved.  We  have  redemption  in  his  blood,  according  to  the 
riches  of  his  grace,  whereby  he  makes  us  accepted  in  the  be- 
loved. And  herein  he  abounds  towards  us  in  all  wisdom  ; 
Ephes.  i.  8.  This  therefore  is  that  which  the  gospel  proposes 
to  us,  as  the  especial  object  of  our  faith  to  the  justification  of 
life. 

But  we  may  also  in  the  same  manner  confirm  the  several 
parts  of  the  assertion  distinctly. 

1.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  proposed  in  the  promise  of  the 
gospel,  is  the  peculiar  object  of  faith  to  justification.  There 
are  three  sorts  of  testimonies  wherby  this  is  confirmed. 

1.  Those  wherein  it  is  positively  asserted;  as  Acts  x.  41. 
"  To  him  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name, 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  receive  the  remission  of  sins." 
Christ  believed  in  as  the  means  and  cause  of  the  remission  of 
sins,  is  that  which  all  the  prophets  give  witness  to.  Acts  xvi.  31. 
"Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved." 
It  is  the  answer  of  the  Apostles  to  the  jailor's  inquiry;  "Sirs, 
what  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?"  His  duty  in  believing,  and 
the  object  of  it,  "the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  is  what  they  return 
thereto,  Acts  iv.  12.  "  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other; 
for  there  is  none  other  name  under  Heaven  given  among  men 
whereby  we  must  be  saved."  That  which  is  proposed  to  us 
as  the  only  way  and  means  of  our  justification  and  salvation. 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  105 

and  that  in  opposition  to  all  other  ways,  is  the  object  of  faith 
to  our  justification;  but  this  is  Christ  alone,  exclusively  to  all 
other  things.  This  is  testified  to  by  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
the  design  of  the  whole  Scripture  being  to  direct  the  faith  of 
the  church  to  the  Lord  Christ  alone,  for  life  and  salvation. 
Luke  xxiv.  25,  26,  27. 

2.  All  those  wherein  justifying  faith  is  affirmed  to  be  our 
believing  in  him,  or  believing  on  his  name,  which  are  multi- 
plied. Johni.  12.  "He  gave  power  to  them  to  become  the  sons 
of  God,  who  believed  on  his  name,"  iii.  16.  "  That  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life,"  ver.  36.  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting 
life,"  vi.  29.  "  This  is  the  work  of  God  that  ye  believe  on  him 
whom  he  hath  sent,"  ver.  47.  "He  that  believeth  on  me 
hath  everlasting  life,"  vii.  38.  "  He  that  believeth  on  me,  out 
of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water."  So,  ix.  35,  36, 
37.;  xi.  25.  Acts  xxvi.  18.  "  That  they  may  receive  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  and  inheritance  among  them  that  are  sanctified, 
by  faith  that  is  in  me,"  1  Pet.  ii.  6,  7.  In  all  which  places, 
and  many  other,  we  are  not  only  directed  to  place  and  fix 
our  faith  on  him,  but  the  effect  of  justification  is  ascribed  thereto. 
So  expressly,  Acts  xiii.  38,  39,  which  is  what  we  design  to 
prove. 

3.  Those  which  give  us  such  a  description  of  the  acts  of 
faith,  as  make  him  the  direct  and  proper  object  of  it.  Such 
are  they  wherein  it  is  called  a  "  receiving  of  him,"  John  i.  12. 
"  To  as  many  as  received  him,"  Col.  Ti.  6.  "  As  you  have 
received  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord."  That  which  we  receive  by 
faith  is  the  proper  object  of  it.  And  it  is  represented  by  their 
looking  to  the  brazen  serpent  when  it  was  lifted  up,  who 
were  stung  by  fiery  serpents,  John  iii.  14,  15.;  xii.  32.  Faith 
is  that  act  of  the  soul  whereby  convinced  sinners,  ready  other- 
wise to  perish,  look  to  Christ  as  he  was  made  a  propitiation 
for  their  sins ;  and  they  who  so  do  shall  not  perish  but  have 
everlasting  life.     He  is  therefore  the  object  of  our  faith. 

2.  He  is  so  as  he  is  the  ordinance  of  God  to  this  end,  which 
consideration  is  not  to  be  separated  from  our  faith  in  him. 
And  this  also  is  confirmed  by  several  sorts  of  testimonies. 

1.  All  those  wherein  the  love  and  grace  of  God  are  proposed 
as  the  only  cause  of  giving  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  way  and 
means  of  our  recovery  and  salvation,  whence  they  become,  or 
God  in  them,  the  supreme  efficient  cause  of  our  justification, 
John  iii.  16.     "God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only 


106 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 


begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life,"  So  Rom.  v.  8.  1  John  iv,  9, 
10,  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemp- 
tion that  is  in  Christ,"  Rom.  iii.  23.  Ephes.  i.  6,  7,  8.  This 
the  Lord  Christ  directs  our  faith  to  continually,  referring  all 
to  him  that  sent  him,  and  whose  will  he  came  to  do.  Heb.  x.  5. 

2.  All  those  wherein  God  is  said  to  set  forth  and  propose 
Christ,  and  to  make  him  be  for  us,  and  to  us,  what  he  is  so,  to 
the  justification  of  life,  Rom.  iii.  25.  "  Whom  God  hath  pro- 
posed to  be  a  propitiation."  1  Cor.  i.  30.  "  Who  of  God  is 
made  unto  us  wisdom  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification 
and  redemption."  2  Cor.  v.  21.  "He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin 
for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  him."  Acts  v.  35,  &c.  Wherefore  in  the 
acting  of  faith  in  Christ  to  justification,  we  can  no  otherwise 
consider  him  but  as  the  ordinance  of  God  to  that  end;  he  brings 
nothing  to  us,  does  nothing  for  us,  but  what  God  appointed, 
designed,  and  made  him  to  be.  And  this  must  diligently  be 
considered,  that  by  our  regard  by  faith  to  the  blood,  the  sa- 
crifice, the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  we  take  off  nothing  from  the 
free  grace,  favour  and  love  of  God. 

3.  All  those  wherein  the  wisdom  of  God,  in  the  contrivance 
of  this  way  of  justification  and  salvatiofi  is  proposed  to  us: 
Ephes.  i.  7,8.  "In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his 
blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his 
grace,  wherein  he  hath  abounded  towards  us  in  all  wisdom 
and  understanding."     See  Ephes.  iii,  10,11.  1  Cor,  i.  24. 

The  whole  is  comprised  in  that  of  the  Apostle;  "  God  was 
in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing 
their  trespasses  unto  them,"  2  Cor.  v.  19,  All  that  is  done  in 
our  reconciliation  to  God,  as  to  the  pardon  of  our  sins,  and 
acceptance  with  him  to  life,  was  by  the  presence  of  God  in 
his  grace,  wisdom,  and  power  in  Christ,  designing  and  effecting 
of  it. 

Wherefore  the  Lord  Christ  proposed  in  the  promise  of  the 
gospel  as  the  object  of  our  faith  to  the  justification  of  life,  is 
considered  as  the  ordinance  of  God  to  that  end.  Hence  the 
love,  the  grace,  and  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the  sending  and 
giving  of  him,  are  comprised  in  that  object;  and  not  only  the 
actings  of  God  in  Christ  towards  us,  but  all  his  actings  towards 
the  person  of  Christ  himself  to  the  same  end  belong  thereto. 
So  as  to  his  death;  God  set  him  forth  to  be  a  propitiation; 
Rom,  iii.  24.     He  spared  him  not  but  delivered  him  up  for 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  107 

US  all,  Rom.  viii.  32.  And  therein  laid  all  our  sins  upon  him, 
Isa.  liii.  6.  So  he  was  raised  for  our  justification,  Rom.  iv. 
25,  And  our  faith  is  in  God  who  raised  him  from  the  dead, 
Rom.  X.  9,  and  in  his  exaltation.  Acts  v.  31.  Which  things  com- 
plete the  record  that  God  hath  given  of  his  Son,  1  John  v.  10 — 12. 

The  whole  is  confirmed  by  the  exercise  of  faith  in  prayer, 
which  is  the  soul's  application  of  itself  to  God  for  the  partici- 
pation of  the  benefits  of  the  mediation  of  Christ.  And  it  is 
called  our  access  through  him  to  the  Father;  Eph.  ii.  IS.  Our 
coming  through  him  to  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  obtain 
mercy,  and  find  grace  to  help  in  time  of  need,  Heb.  iv.  15,  16, 
and  through  him,  as  both  a  high  priest  and  sacrifice,  Heb.  x. 
19 — 21.  So  do  we  bow  our  knees  to  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  Ephes.  iii.  14.  This  answers  the  experience  of 
all  who  know  what  it  is  to  pray.  We  come  therein  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  by  him,  through  his  mediation,  to  God  even  the 
Father,  to  be  through  his  grace,  love  and  mercy,  made  par- 
takers of  what  he  has  designed  and  promised  to  communicate 
to  poor  sinners  by  him.  And  this  represents  the  complete 
object  of  our  faith. 

The  due  consideration  of  these  things  will  reconcile  and 
reduce  into  a  perfect  harmony,  whatever  is  spoken  in  the 
Scripture  concerning  the  object  of  justifying  faith,  or  what  we 
are  said  to  believe  therewith.  For  whereas  this  is  affirmed 
of  sundry  things  distinctly,  none  of  them  can  be  supposed  to 
be  the  entire  adequate  object  of  faith.  But  consider  them  all 
in  their  relation  to  Christ,  and  they  have  all  of  them  their 
proper  place  therein;  namely,  the  grace  of  God,  which  is  the 
cause;  the  pardon  of  sin,  which  is  the  effect;  and  the  promises 
of  the  gospel,  which  are  the  means  of  communicating  the  Lord 
Christ  and  the  benefits  of  his  mediation  to  us. 


CHAPTER  H. 

The  nature  of  justifying  faith. 

That  which  we  shall  now  inquire  into,  is  the  nature  of  justi- 
fying faith ;  or  of  faith  in  that  act  and  exercise  of  it  whereby 
we  are  justified,  or  whereon  justification  according  to  God's 


108 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 


ordination  and  promise  ensues.  And  the  reader  is  desired  to 
take  along  with  him  a  supposition  of  those  things  which  we 
have  already  ascribed  to  it,  as  it  is  sincere  faith  in  general;  as 
also  of  what  is  required  previously  thereto,  as  to  its  especial 
nature,  work  and  duty  in  our  justification.  For  we  deny  that 
ordinarily  and  according  to  the  method  of  God's  proceeding 
with  us  declared  in  the  Scripture,  wherein  the  rule  of  our  duty 
is  prescribed,  any  one  does,  or  can  truly  believe  with  faith 
to  justification,  in  whom  the  work  of  conviction  before  de- 
scribed, has  not  been  wrought.  All  descriptions  or  definitions 
of  faith  that  have  not  a  respect  thereto,  are  but  vain  specula- 
tions. And  hence  some  give  us  such  definitions  of  faith,  as  it 
is  hard  to  conceive,  that  they  ever  asked  of  themselves,  what 
they  do,  in  their  believing  on  Jesus  Christ  for  life  and  sal- 
vation. 

The  nature  of  justifying  faith  with  respect  to  that  exercise 
of  it  whereby  we  are  justified,  consists  in  the  heart's  approba- 
tion of  the  way  of  justification  and  salvation  of  sinners  by  Jesus 
Christ  proposed  in  the  gospel,  as  proceeding  from  the  grace, 
wisdom  and  love  of  God,  with  its  acquiescence  therein,  as  to 
its  own  concernment  and  condition. 

There  needs  no  more  for  the  explanation  of  this  declaration 
of  the  nature  of  faith,  than  what  we  have  before  proved  con- 
cerning its  object ;  and  what  may  seem  wanting  thereto,  will 
be  fully  supplied  in  the  ensuing  confirmation  of  it.  The 
Lord  Christ  and  his  mediation,  as  the  ordinance  of  God  for 
the  recovery,  life  and  salvation  of  sinners,  is  supposed  as  the 
object  of  this  faith.  And  they  are  all  considered  as  an  effect 
of  the  wisdom,  grace,  authority,  and  love  of  God,  with  all  their 
actings  in  and  towards  the  Lord  Christ  himself,  in  his  suscep- 
tion  and  discharge  of  his  office.  Hereto  he  constantly  refers 
all  that  he  did  and  suff'ered,  with  all  the  benefits  redounding 
to  the  church  thereby.  Hence,  as  we  observed  before,  some- 
times the  grace,  or  love,  or  especial  mercy  of  God,  sometimes 
his  actings  in  or  towards  the  Lord  Christ  himself,  in  sending 
him,  giving  him  up  to  death,  and  raising  him  from  the  dead, 
are  proposed  as  the  object  of  our  faith  to  justification.  But 
they  are  so  always  with  respect  to  his  obedience  and  the  atone- 
ment that  he  made  for  sin.  Neither  are  they  so  altogether 
absolutely  considered,  but  as  proposed  in  the  promises  of  the 
gospel.  Hence  a  sincere  assent  to  the  divine  veracity  in  those 
promises,  is  included  in  this  approbation. 

What  belongs  to  the  confirmation  of  this  description  of  faith 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  109 

shall  be  reduced  to  these  four  heads.  (1)  The  declaration  of 
its  contrary,  or  the  nature  of  privative  unbelief  upon  the  pro- 
posal of  the  gospel.  For  these  things  mutually  illustrate  one 
another.  (2)  The  declaration  of  the  design  and  end  of  God  in 
and  by  the  gospel.  (3)  The  nature  of  faith's  compliance  with 
that  design,  or  its  actings  with  respect  thereto.  (4)  The  order, 
method,  and  way  of  believing  as  declared  in  the  Scripture. 

1.  The  gospel  is  the  revelation  or  declaration  of  that  way 
of  justification  and  salvation  for  sinners  by  Jesus  Christ, 
which  God  in  infinite  wisdom,  love  and  grace,  has  prepared. 
And  upon  a  supposition  of  the  reception  thereof,  it  is  accom- 
panied with  precepts  of  obedience,  and  promises  of  rewards. 
Therein  "  the  righteousness  of  God,"  that  which  he  requires, 
accepts  and  approves  to  salvation,  "  is  revealed  from  faith  unto 
faith,"  Rom.  i.  17.  This  is  the  record  of  God  therein  "that 
he  hath  given  unto  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son," 
1  John  V.  10.  So  John  iii.  14 — 17.  The  words  of  this  life, 
Acts  V.  20.  All  the  counsel  of  God,  Acts  xx.  27.  Wherefore  in 
the  dispensation  or  preaching  of  the  gospel,  this  way  of  salva- 
tion is  proposed  to  sinners,  as  the  great  effect  of  divine  wisdom 
and  grace.  Unbelief  is  the  rejection,  neglect,  non  admission, 
or  disapprobation  of  it,  on  the  terms  whereon,  and  for  the  ends 
for  which  it  is  so  proposed.  The  unbelief  of  the  Pharisees 
upon  the  preparatory  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  is  called 
the  "rejecting  of  the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves,"  that 
is,  to  their  own  ruin,  Luke  vii.  30.  "They  would  none  of  my 
counsel,"  is  an  expression  to  the  same  purpose,  Prov.  i.  30. 
So  is  the  "neglecting  of  this  great  salvation,"  Heb.  ii.  3.  the 
not  giving  it  that  admission  which  the  excellency  of  it  requires. 
A  disallowing  of  Christ;  the  Stone  ov  u7r£?>oxifj.asav  ol  dixodofiowtii, 
1  Pet.  ii.  7,  "  which  the  builders  disapproved  of,"  as  not  meet 
for  that  place  and  work  whereto  it  was  designed.  Acts  iv.  14. 
This  is  unbelief.  To  disapprove  of  Christ  and  the  way  of  sal- 
vation by  him,  as  not  answering  divine  wisdom  nor  suited  to 
the  end  designed.  So  is  it  described  by  the  refusing  or  not 
receiving  of  him ; — all  to  the  same  purpose. 

What  is  intended  will  be  more  evident,  if  we  consider  the 
proposal  of  the  gospel  where  it  issued  in  unbelief,  in  the  first 
preaching  of  it,  and  where  it  continues  still  so  to  do. 

1.  Most  of  those  who  rejected  the  gospel  by  their  unbelief, 
did  it  under  this  notion,  that  the  way  of  salvation  and  blessed- 
ness proposed  therein,  was  not  a  way  answering  divine  good- 
ness and  power,  such  as  they  might  safely  confide  in  and  trust 

10 


110  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

to.  This  the  Apostle  declares  at  large,  1  Cor.  i;  so  he  expresses 
it,  ver.  23,  24.  "We  preach  Christ  crucified,  unto  the  Jews  a 
stumbling  block,  and  unto  the  Greeks  foolishness.  But  unto 
them  that  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power 
of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God."  That  which  they  declared 
to  them  in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  was,  that  "  Christ  died 
for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scripture,"  chap.  xv.  3.  Herein 
they  proposed  him  as  the  ordinance  of  God,  as  the  great  effect 
of  his  wisdom  and  power  for  the  salvation  of  sinners.  But  as 
to  those  who  continued  in  their  unbelief,  they  rejected  it  as  any 
such  way,  esteeming  it  both  weakness  and  folly.  And  there- 
fore he  describes  the  faith  of  them  that  are  called,  by  their  ap- 
probation of  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  herein.  The  want 
of  a  comprehension  of  the  glory  of  God  in  this  way  of  sal- 
vation, and  rejecting  it  thereon,  is  that  unbelief  which  ruins 
the  souls  of  men,  2  Cor.  iv.  3,  4. 

So  is  it  with  all  that  continue  unbelievers  under  the  proposal 
of  the  object  of  faith  in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  They  may 
give  an  assent  to  the  truth  of  it,  so  far  as  it  is  a  mere  act  of  the 
mind;  at  least  they  find  not  themselves  concerned  to  reject  it. 
Yea,  they  may  assent  to  it  with  that  temporary  faith  which  we 
described  before,  and  perform  many  duties  of  religion  thereon. 
Yet  they  manifest  that  they  are  not  sincere  believers,  that  they 
do  not  "believe  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness,"  by  many 
things  that  are  irreconcilable  to,  and  inconsistent  with  justify- 
ing faith.  The  inquiry  therefore  is,  wherein  the  unbelief  of 
such  persons,  on  account  of  which  they  perish,  consists,  and 
what  is  the  formal  nature  of  it.  It  is  not  as  was  said,  in  the 
want  of  an  assent  to  the  truths  of  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel; 
for  from  such  an  assent  are  they  said  in  many  places  of  the 
Scripture  to  believe,  as  has  been  proved.  And  this  assent  may 
be  so  firm,  and  by  various  means  so  rooted  in  their  minds,  that 
in  testimony  to  it  they  may  give  their  bodies  to  be  burned;  as 
men  also  may  do  in  the  confirmation  of  a  false  persuasion. 
Nor  is  it  the  want  of  an  especial  fiduciary  application  of  the 
promises  of  the  gospel  to  themselves,  and  the  belief  of  the 
pardon  of  their  own  sins  in  particular.  For  this  is  not  proposed 
to  them  in  the  first  preaching  of  the  gospel,  as  that  which  they 
are  first  to  believe;  and  there  may  be  a  believing  unto  right- 
eousness where  this  is  not  attained,  Isa.  I.  10.  This  will  evi- 
dence faith  not  to  be  true,  but  it  is  not  formal  unbelief  Nor 
is  it  the  want  of  obedience  to  the  precepts  of  the  gospel  in 
duties  of  holiness  and  righteousness.     For  these  commands  as 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  Ill 

formally  given  in  and  by  the  gospel,  belong  only  to  them  that 
truly  believe,  and  are  justified  thereon.  That  therefore  which 
is  required  to  evangelical  faith,  wherein  the  nature  of  it  consists, 
ji  as  it  is  the  foundation  of  all  future  obedience,  is  the  heart's  ap- 
}] probaiio?i  of  the  way  of  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ, 
proposed  to  it  as  the  effect  of  the  infinite  wisdom,  love,  grace, 
and  goodness  of  God;  and  as  that  which  is  suited  to  all  the 
wants  and  whole  design  of  guilty  convinced  sinners.  This 
such  persons  have  not,  and  in  the  want  thereof  consists  the 
formal  nature  of  unbelief  For  without  this,  no  man  is,  or  can 
be  influenced  by  the  gospel  to  a  relinquishment  of  sin,  or  en- 
couraged to  obedience,  whatever  they  may  do  on  other  grounds 
and  motives  that  are  foreign  to  the  grace  of  it.  And  wherever 
this  cordial  sincere  approbation  of  the  way  of  salvation  by 
Jesus  Christ  proposed  in  the  gospel  prevails,  it  will  infallibly 
produce  both  repentance  and  obedience. 

If  the  mind  and  heart  of  a  convinced  sinner  (for  of  such  alone 
we  treat)  be  able  spiritually  to  discern  the  wisdom,  love,  and 
grace  of  God  in  this  way  of  salvation,  and  be  under  the  power 
of  that  persuasion,  he  has  the  ground  of  repentance  and  obe- 
dience which  is  given  by  the  gospel.  The  receiving  of  Christ 
mentioned  in  the  Scripture,  and  whereby  the  nature  of  faith 
in  its  exercise  is  expressed,  I  refer  to  the  latter  part  of  the  de- 
scription given  concerning  the  soul's  acquiescence  in  God,  by 
the  way  proposed. 

Again,  some  there  were  at  first,  and  such  still  continue  to  be, 
who  rejected  not  this  way  absolutely,  and  in  the  notion  of  it, 
but  comparatively,  as  reduced  to  practice,  and  so  perished  in 
their  unbelief  They  judged  the  way  of  their  own  righteous- 
ness to  be  better,  as  that  which  might  be  more  safely  trusted 
to,  as  more  according  to  the  mind  of  God  and  to  his  glory.  So 
did  the  Jews  generally,  the  frame  of  whose  minds  the  Apostle 
represents,  Rom.  x.  3,  4.  And  many  of  them  assented  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  gospel  in  general  as  true,  howbeit  they  liked  it 
not  in  their  hearts  as  the  best  way  of  justification  and  salva- 
tion, but  sought  for  them  by  the  works  of  the  law. 

Wherefore  unbelief  in  its  formal  nature  consists  in  the  want 
of  a  spiritual  discerning,  and  approbation  of  the  way  of  salva- 
tion by  Jesus  Christ,  as  an  effect  of  the  infinite  wisdom,  good- 
ness and  love  of  God.  For  where  these  are,  the  soul  of  a 
convinced  sinner  cannot  but  embrace  it,  and  adhere  to  it. 
Hence  also  all  acquiescence  in  this  way,  and  trust  and  con- 
fidence in  committing  the  soul  to  it,  or  to  God  in  it,  and  by  it, 


112  JUSTIFYING   FAITH. 

without  which  whatever  is  pretended  of  believing  is  but  a 
shadow  of  faith,  is  impossible  to  such  persons.  For  they  want 
the  foundation  whereon  alone  they  can  be  built.  And  the  con- 
sideration of  this  sufficiently  manifests  wherein  the  nature  of 
true  evangelical  faith  consists. 

2.  The  design  of  God  in  and  by  the  gospel,  with  the  work 
and  ofiice  of  faith  with  respect  thereto,  further  confirms  the 
description  given  of  it.  That  which  God  designs  herein  m  the 
first  place,  is  not  the  justification  and  salvation  of  sinners.  His 
utmost  complete  end  in  all  his  counsels  is  his  own  glory;  he 
does  "all  things  for  himself,"  nor  can  he  who  is  infinite  do 
otherwise.  But  in  an  especial  manner  he  expresses  this  con- 
cerning this  way  of  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ. 

Particularly,  He  designed  herein  the  glory  of  his  righteous- 
ness. "  To  declare  his  righteousness;"  Rom.  iii.  25.  Of  liis 
love;  "God  so  loved  the  world,"  John  iii.  16.  "  Herein  we 
perceive  the  love  of  God  that  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us,"  1 
John  iii.  16.  Of  his  grace;  "accepted  to  the  praise  of  the  glory 
of  his  grace,"  Ephes.  i.  5,  6.  Of  his  wisdom;  "  Christ  crucified, 
the  wisdom  of  God,"  1  Cor.  i.  24,  "might  be  known  by  the 
church  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God,"  Ephes.  iii.  10.  Of  his 
power;  "it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation,"  Rom.  i.  16, 
Of  his  faithfulness,  Rom.  iv.  16.  For  God  designed  herein, 
not  only  the  reparation  of  all  that  glory,  whose  declaration 
was  impeached  and  obscured  by  the  entrance  of  sin,  but  also  a 
further  exaltation  and  more  eminent  manifestation  of  it,  as  to 
the  degrees  of  its  exaltation,  and  some  especial  instances  before 
concealed,  Ephes.  iii.  9.  And  ail  this  is  called  "  the  glory  of 
God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,"  whereof  faith  is  the  behold- 
ing, 2  Cor.  iv.  6. 

3.  This  being  the  principal  design  of  God  in  the  way  of 
justification  and  salvation  by  Christ  proposed  in  the  gospel, 
that  which  on  our  part  is  required  to  a  participation  of  the 
benefits  of  it,  is  the  ascription  of  that  glory  to  God  which  he 
designs  so  to  exalt.  The  acknowledgment  of  all  these  glo- 
rious properties  of  the  divine  nature,  as  manifested  in  the  pro- 
vision and  proposition  of  this  way  of  life,  righteousness  and 
salvation,  with  an  approbation  of  the  way  itself  as  an  effect  of 
them,  and  that  which  is  safely  to  be  trusted  to,  is  that  which  is 
required  of  us;  and  this  is  faith  or  believing.  "Being  strong 
in  faith  he  gave  glory  to  God,"  Rom.  iv.  22.  And  this  is  in 
the  nature  of  the  weakest  degree  of  sincere  faith.  And  no 
other  grace,  work  or  duty,  is  suited  to  this,  or  firstly  and  directly 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  113 

of  that  tendency,  but  only  consequentially  and  in  the  way  of 
gratitude.  And  although  I  cannot  wholly  assent  to  him  who 
afiirms  that  faith,  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  is  nothing  but,  "  an 
exalted  sentiment  of  the  power,  justice,  goodness,  and  covenant- 
faithfulness  of  God,"  existimatio  magnifice  sentiens  de  Dei 
potentia,  justitia,  bonitate,  et  si  quid  promiserit  in  eo  prse- 
stando  constantia;  because  it  is  too  general  and  not  limited 
to  the  way  of  salvation  by  Christ,  his  "elect  in  whom  he  will  / 
be  glorified,"  yet  has  it  much  of  the  nature  of  faith  in  it.*\«* 
Wherefore  I  say,  that  hence  we  may  both  learn  the  nature  of 
faith,  and  whence  it  is  that  faith  alone  is  required  to  our  justi- 
fication. The  reason  of  it  is,  because  this  alone  is  that  grace 
or  duty  whereby  we  do  or  can  give  to  God  that  glor^^  which  he 
designs  to  manifest  and  exalt  in  and  by  Jesus  Christ.  Faith 
in  the  sense  we  inquire  after,  is  the  heart's  approbation  of,  and 
consent  to  the  way  of  life  and  salvation  of  sinners  by  Jesus  \ 
Christ,  as  that,  wherein  the  glory  of  the  righteousness,  wisdom, 
grace,  love,  and  mercy  of  God  is  exalted,  the  praise  whereof 
it  ascribes  to  him,  and  rests  in  it,  as  to  the  ends  of  it,  namely, 
justification,  life  and  salvation.  It  is  to  give  "glory  to  God," 
Rom.  iv.  20,  to  "behold  his  glory  as  in  a  glass,"  or  the  gospel 
wherein  it  is  represented  to  us,  2  Cor.  iii.  18;  to  have  in  our 
hearts  the  "light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the 
face  of  Jesus  Christ,"  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  The  contrary  makes  God 
a  liar,  and  thereby  despoils  him  of  the  glory  of  all  those  holy 
properties  which  lie  this  way  designed  to  manifest,  1  John  v.  10. 

And  if  I  mistake  not,  this  is  that  to  which  the  experience  of 
them  that  truly  believe,  when  they  are  out  of  the  heats  of  dis- 
putation, will  give  testimony. 

4.  To  understand  the  nature  of  justifying  faith  aright,  or  the 
act  and  exercise  of  saving  faith  in  order  to  our  justification, 
which  are  properly  inquired  after,  we  must  consider  the  order 
of  it,  first  the  things  which  are  necessarily  previous  to  it,  and 
then  what  it  is  to  believe  with  respect  to  them.     As, 

1.  The  state  of  a  convinced  sinner;  who  is  the  only  subjec- 
tum  capax  Justificationis.  This  has  been  spoken  to  already; 
and  the  necessity  of  its  precedency  to  the  orderly  proposal  and 
receiving  of  evangelical  righteousness  for  justification,  demon- 
strated. If  we  lose  a  respect  to  this,  we  lose  our  best  guide 
towards  the  discovery  of  the  nature  of  faith.  Let  no  man 
think  to  understand  the  gospel,  who  knows  nothing  of  the  law. 
God's  constitution  and  the  nature  of  the  things  themselves, 
have  given  the  law  the  precedency  with  respect  to  sinners; 

10* 


114 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 


for  "  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin."  And  gospel  faith 
is  the  soul's  acting  according  to  the  mind  of  God  for  deliver- 
ance from  that  state  and  condition  which  it  is  cast  under  by 
the  law.  And  all  those  descriptions  of  faith  which  abound 
in  the  writings  of  learned  men,  which  do  not  at  least  include 
in  them  a  virtual  respect  to  this  state  and  condition,  or  the 
work  of  the  law  on  the  consciences  of  sinners,  are  all  of  them 
vain  speculations.  There  is  nothing  in  this  whole  doctrine 
that  I  will  more  firmly  adhere  to,  than  the  necessity  of  the 
convictions  mentioned  previous  to  true  believing,  without 
which  not  one  line  of  it  can  be  understood  aright,  and  men  do 
but  beat  the  air  in  their  contentions  about  it.  See  Rom.  iii. 
21—24. 

2.  We  suppose  herein  a  sincere  assent  to  all  divine  revela- 
tions, whereof  the  promises  of  grace  and  mercy  by  Christ  are 
an  especial  part.  This  Paul  supposed  in  Agrippa  when  he 
would  have  won  him  over  to  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  "King 
Agrippa  believest  thou  the  prophets?  I  know  that  thou  be- 
lievest."  Acts  xxvi.  27.  And  this  assent  which  respects  the 
promises  of  the  gospel,  not  as  they  contain,  propose,  and  ex- 
hibit the  Lord  Christ  and  the  benefits  of  his  mediation  to  us, 
but  as  divine  revelations  of  infallible  truth,  is  true  and  sincere 
in  its  kind,  as  we  described  it  before  under  the  notion  of  tem- 
porary faith.  But  as  it  proceeds  no  further,  as  it  includes  no 
act  of  the  will  or  heart,  it  is  not  that  faith  whereby  we  are 
justified.  However  it  is  required  thereto,  and  is  included 
therein. 

3.  The  proposal  of  the  gospel  according  to  the  mind  of  God 
is  hereunto  supposed:  that  is,  that  it  be  preached  according 
to  God's  appointment.  For  not  only  the  gospel  itself,  but  the 
dispensation  or  preaching  of  it  in  the  ministry  of  the  church  is 
ordinarily  required  to  believing.  This  the  Apostle  asserts,  and 
proves  the  necessity  of  it  at  large,  Rom.  x.  11 — 17.  Herein 
the  Lord  Christ  and  his  mediation  with  God,  the  only  way 
and  means  for  the  justification  and  salvation  of  lost  convinced 
sinners,  as  the  product  and  effect  of  divine  wisdom,  love,  grace 
and  righteousness,  is  revealed,  declared,  proposed,  and  offered 
to  such  sinners.  For  therein  is  "  the  righteousness  of  God 
revealed  from  faith  to  faith,"  Rom.  i.  17.  The  glory  of  God 
is  represented  as  "in  a  glass,"  2  Cor.  iii.  IS,  and  "  life  and 
immortality  are  brought  to  light  through  the  gospel,"  2  Tim. 
i.  10.   Heb.  ii.  3.  Wherefore, 

4.  The  persons  who  are  required  to  believe,  and  whose  im- 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 


115 


mediate  duty  it  is  so  to  do,  are  those  who  really  in  their  own 
consciences  are  brought  to  make  the  inquiries  mentioned  in 
the  Scripture;  What  shall  we  do?  What  shall  we  do  to  be 
saved?  How  shall  we  fly  from  the  wrath  to  come?  Where- 
withal shall  we  appear  before  God?  How  shall  we  answer 
what  is  laid  to  our  charge?  Or  such  as  being  sensible  of  the 
guilt  of  sin,  seek  for  a  righteousness  in  the  sight  of  God,  Acts 
ii.  38;  xvi.  30,  31.  Micah.  vi.  6,  7.  Isa.  xxxv.  4.  Heb.  vi.  18. 

On  these  suppositions  the  command  and  direction  given  to 
men  being  "  believe  and  you  shall  be  saved,"  the  inquiry  is, 
what  is  that  act  or  work  of  faith,  whereby  they  may  obtain  a 
real  interest  or  propriety  in  the  promises  of  the  gospel,  and  the 
things  declared  in  them  to  their  justification  before  God? 

And  1.  It  is  evident  from  what  has  been  discoursed,  that  it 
does  not  consist  in,  that  it  is  not  to  be  fully  expressed  by,  any 
one  single  habit  or  act  of  the  mind  or  will  distinctly  whatever. 
For  there  are  such  descriptions  given  of  it  in  the  Scripture, 
such  things  are  proposed  as  the  object  of  it,  and  such  is  the 
experience  of  all  that  sincerely  believe,  as  no  one  single  act 
either  of  the  mind  or  will,  can  answer  to.  Nor  can  an  exact 
method  of  those  acts  of  the  soul  which  are  concurrent  therein 
be  prescribed.     Only  what  is  essential  to  it  is  manifest. 

2.  That  which  in  order  of  nature  seems  to  have  the  prece- 
dency is  the  assent  of  the  mind  to  that  which  the  Psalmist 
betakes  himself  to  in  the  first  place,  for  relief,  under  a  sense  of 
sin  and  trouble,  Psal.  cxxx.  3,  4.  "If  thou  Lord  shouldst 
mark  iniquity,  0  Lord,  who  shall  stand?"  The  sentence  of 
the  law  and  judgment  of  conscience  lie  against  him  as  to  any 
acceptation  with  God.  Therefore  he  despairs  in  himself,  of 
standing  in  judgment,  or  being  acquitted  before  him.  In  this 
state  that  which  the  soul  first  fixes  on  as  to  its  relief  is,  that 
there  is  forgiveness  with  God.  This  asdeclared  in  the  gospel, 
is,  that  God  in  his  love  and  grace  will  pardon  and  justify  guilty 
sinners  through  the  blood  and  mediation  of  Christ.  So  it  is 
proposed,  Rom.  iii.  23,  24.  The  assent  of  the  mind  hereto  as 
proposed  in  the  promise  of  the  gospel,  is  the  root  of  faith,  the 
foundation  of  all  that  the  soul  does  in  believing.  Nor  is  there 
any  evangelical  faith  without  it.  But  yet  consider  it  abstract- 
edly as  a  mere  act  of  the  mind,  the  essence  and  nature  of  jus- 
tifying faith  does  not  consist  solely  therein,  though  it  cannot 
be  without  it.     But, 

2.  This  is  accompanied  in  sincere  believing  with  an  appro- 
bation of  the  way  of  deliverance  and  salvation  proposed,  as  an 


*' 


116  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

effect  of  divine  grace,  wisdom  and  love,  wliereon  tiie  heart 
rests  in  it,  and  applies  itself  to  it  according  to  the  mind  of 
God.  This  is  that  faith  whereby  we  are  justified;  which  I 
shall  further  evince  by  showing  what  is  included  in  it,  and 
inseparable  from  it. 

1.  It  includes  in  it  a  sincere  renunciation  of  all  other  ways 
and  means  for  the  attainingof  righteousness,  life  and  salvation. 
This  is  essential  to  faith.  Acts  iv.  12.  Hos.  xiv.  2,  3.  Jerem. 
iii.  23.  Psal.  Ixxi.  16.  "I  will  make  mention  of  thy  right- 
eousness, of  thine  only."  When  a  person  is  in  the  condition 
before  described,  (and  such  alone  are  called  immediately  to 
believe,  Matth.  ix.  13.;  xi.  28.  1  Tim.  i.  15.)  many  things 
will  present  themselves  to  him  for  his  relief;  particularly  his 
own  righteousness,  Rom.  x.  3.  A  renunciation  of  them  all  as 
to  any  hope  or  expectation  of  relief  from  them,  belongs  to 
sincere  believing,  Isa.  1.  10,  11. 

2.  There  is  in  it  the  will's  consent,  whereby  the  soul  betakes 
itself  cordially  and  sincerely,  as  to  all  its  expectation  of  par- 
don of  sin  and  righteousness  before  God,  to  the  way  of  salva- 
tion proposed  in  the  gospel.  This  is  that  which  is  called  coining 
to  Christ,  and  receivmg  of  him,  whereby  true  justifying  faith 
is  so  often  expressed  in  the  Scripture;  or  as  it  is  peculiarly  called 
believing  in  him,  or  believing  on  his  name.  The  whole  is  ex- 
pressed, John  xiv.  6.  "Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  am  the  way,  the 
truth  and  the  life;  no  man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me." 

3.  An  acquiescence  of  the  heart  in  God,  as  the  author  and 
principal  cause  of  the  way  of  salvation  prepared;  as  acting  in 
a  way  of  sovereign  grace  and  mercy  towards  sinners,  "  who 
by  him  do  believe  in  God  who  raised  him  up  from  the  dead, 
and  gave  him  glory,  that  your  faith  and  hope  might  be  in  God," 
1  Pet.  i.  21.  The  heart  of  a  sinner  herein  gives  to  God  the 
glory  of  all  those  holy  properties  of  his  nature  which  he  de- 
signed to  manifest  in  and  by  Jesus  Christ.  See  Isa.  xlii.  1 ; 
chap.  xlix.  3.  And  this  acquiescence  of  the  heart  in  God,  is 
that  which  is  the  immediate  root  of  that  waiting,  patience, 
long-suffering  and  hope,  which  are  the  proper  acts  and  effects 
of  justifying  faith,  Heb.  vi.  12,  15,  18,  19. 

4.  Trust  in  God,  or  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God  in  and 
through  the  Lord  Christ  as  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation 
through/aith  in  his  blood,  belongs  hereto,  or  necessarily  ensues 
hereon.  For  the  person  called  to  believing,  is  (1)  convinced  of 
sin,  and  exposed  to  wrath.  (2)  Has  nothing  else  to  trust  to  for 
help  and  relief.     (3)  Actually  renounces  all  other  things  that 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  117 

tender  themselves  to  that  end;  and  therefore  without  some  act 
of  trust  the  soul  must  lie  under  actual  despair,  which  is  ut- 
terly inconsistent  with  faith,  or  the  choice  and  approbation 
of  the  way  of  salvation  before  described.  5.  The  most  fre- 
quent declaration  of  the  nature  of  faith  in  the  Scripture,  espe- 
cially in  the  Old  Testament,  is  by  this  trust,  and  that  because 
it  is  that  act  of  it  which  composes  the  soul,  and  brings  it  to  all 
the  rest  it  can  attain.  For  all  our  rest  in  this  world  is  from 
trust  in  God.  And  the  especial  object  of  this  trust,  so  far  as 
it  belongs  to  the  nature  of  that  faith  whereby  we  are  justified, 
is  God  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself  For  this  is 
respected  where  his  goodness,  his  mercy,  his  grace,  his  name, 
his  faithfulness,  his  power,  are  expressed,  or  any  of  them,  as 
that  which  it  immediately  relies  upon.  For  they  are  no  way 
the  object  of  our  trust,  nor  can  be,  but  on  the  account  of  the 
covenant  which  is  confirmed  and  ratified  in  and  by  the  blood 
of  Christ  alone. 

Whether  this  trust  or  confidence  shall  be  esteemed  of  the 
essence  of  faith,  or  as  that  which,  on  the  first  fruit  and  working 
of  it,  we  are  found  exercising,  we  need  not  positively  deter- 
mine. I  place  it  therefore  as  that  which  belongs  to  justifying 
faith,  and  is  inseparable  from  it.  For  if  all  we  have  spoken 
before  concerning  faith  may  be  comprised  under  the  notion  of 
a  firm  assent  and  persuasion,  yet  it  cannot  be  so,  if  any  such 
assent  be  conceivable  exclusive  of  this  trust. 

This  trust  is  that  whereof  many  divines  make  special  mercy 
to  be  the  peculiar  object;  and  that  especial  mercy  to  be  such 
as  to  include  in  it  the  pardon  of  our  own  sins.  This  by  their 
adversaries  is  fiercely  opposed,  and  that  on  such  grounds  as 
manifest  that  they  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  such  state 
attainable  in  this  life ;  and  that  if  there  were,  it  would  not  be 
of  any  use  to  us,  but  rather  be  a  means  of  security  and  negli- 
gence in  our  duty;  wherein  they  betray  how  great  is  the  ignor- 
ance of  these  things  in  their  own  minds.  But  mercy  may  be 
said  to  be  especial  two  ways.  (1)  In  itself,  and  in  opposition 
to  common  mercy.  (2)  With  respect  to  him  that  believes.  In 
the  first  sense  especial  mercy  is  the  object  of  faith  as  justifying. 
For  no  more  is  intended  by  it,  but  the  grace  of  God  setting 
forth  Christ  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood, 
Rom.  iii.  23,  24.  And  faith  in  this  especial  mercy,  is  that 
which  the  Apostle  calls  our  "receiving  of  the  atonement,'' 
Rom.  V.  11.  That  is  our  approbation  of  it,  and  adherence  to 
it,  as  the  great  effect  of  Divine  wisdom,  goodness,  faithfulness, 


118  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

love  and  grace,  which  will  therefore  never  fail  them  who  put 
their  trust  in  it.  In  the  latter  sense  it  is  looked  on  as  the  par- 
don of  our  own  sins  in  particular,  the  especial  mercy  of  God  to 
our  souls.  That  this  is  the  object  of  justifying  faith,  that  a 
man  is  bound  to  believe  this  in  order  of  nature  antecedent  to 
his  justification  I  deny;  nor  yet  do  I  know  of  any  testimony  or 
safe  experience  whereby  it  may  be  confirmed.  But  yet  those 
who  deny  that  an  undeceiving  belief  hereof  is  to  be  attained 
in  this  life;  or  that  it  is  our  duty  to  believe  the  pardon  of  our 
own  sins,  and  the  especial  love  of  God  in  Christ,  in  the  order 
and  method  of  our  duty  and  privileges  limited  and  determined 
in  the  gospel,  so  as  to  come  to  the  full  assurance  of  them, 
(though  I  will  not  deny  but  that  peace  with  God  which  is  in- 
separable from  justification  may  be  without  them)  seem  not  to 
be  much  acquainted  with  the  design  of  God  in  the  gospel,  the 
efficacy  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  the  nature  and  work  of  faith 
or  their  own  duty,  nor  the  professed  experience  of  believers 
recorded  in  the  Scripture.  See  Rom.  v.  1 — 5.  Heb.  x.  2,  10,20, 
21.  Psal.  xlvi.  1,  2.  Psal.  cxxxviii.  7,  8,  &c.  Yet  it  is  granted 
that  all  these  things  are  rather  fruits  or  eflfects  of  faith,  as  under 
exercise  and  improvement,  than  of  the  essence  of  it,  as  it  is  the 
instrument  in  our  justification. 

And  the  trust  before  mentioned,  which  is  either  essential  to 
justifying  faith,  or  inseparable  from  it,  is  excellently  expressed 
by  Bernard,*  "  I  look  at  three  things,  on  which  all  my  hope 
depends;  the  love  which  has  adopted,  the  truth  which  has  pro- 
mised, and  the  power  which  fulfils.  Let  my  foolish  thoughts 
murmur  as  they  will,  saying,  who  then  art  thou?  and  how 
great  is  that  glory,  and  with  what  merits  hopest  thou  to  obtain 
it?  With  confidence  I  shall  reply,  '  I  know  in  whom  I  have 
believed,'  and  am  assured  that  in  love  he  has  adopted  me ; 
that  he  is  true  to  his  promises;  that  he  is  powerful  in  fulfil- 
ment ;  for  he  may  do  whatever  he  will.  This  is  a  three-fold 
cord,  which  cannot  easily  be  broken.  Let  us  firmly  hold  to  it, 
when  it  is  let  down  to  us  here  on  earth  from  our  country 

*  Tria  considero  in  quibus  tota  mea  spes  consistit ;  charitatcm  adoptionis,  ve- 
ritatem  promissionis,  potestatem  redditionis.  Murmuret  jam  quantum  voluerit 
insipiens  cogitatio  mea,  dicens  quis  enim  es  tu,  et  quanta  est  ilia  gloria,  quibusve 
nieritis  hanc  obtinere  speras  ?  et  ego  fiducialiter  respondebo,  scio  cui  credidi,  et 
certus  sum  quia  in  charitate  adoptavit  me,  quia  verax  in  promissione,  quia  potens 
in  exhibitione ;  licet  enira  ei  facere  quod  voluerit.  Hie  est  funiculus  triplex,  qui 
difRculter  rumpitur,  quem  nobis  ex  patria  nostra  in  hanc  terram  usque  demissum, 
firmiter  obsecro  teneamus,  et  ipse  nos  sublevet,  ipse  nos  trahat  et  pertrahat  usque 
ad  conspecturn  gloriae  magni  Dei,  qui  est  benedictus  insecuia.  De  Evangel.  Ser.  3. 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  ]  19 

above,  until  it  raise  us  and  draw  us  up  even  to  the  presence 
of  the  glory  of  the  great  God,  who  is  blessed  for  ever  !" 

Concerning  this  faith  and  trust  it  is  earnestly  pleaded  by 
many,  that  obedience  is  included  in  it.  But  as  to  the  way 
and  manner  thereof  they  variously  express  themselves.  So- 
cinus  and  those  who  follow  him  absolutely  make  obedience  to 
be  the  essential  form  of  faith,  which  is  denied  by  Episcopius. 
The  Papists  distinguish  between  faith  informed,  and  faith 
formed  by  charity,  which  comes  to  the  same  purpose.  For 
both  are  built  on  this  supposition,  that  there  may  be  true  evan- 
gelical faith,  that  which  is  required  as  our  duty,  and  conse- 
quently is  accepted  of  God,  that  may  contain  all  in  it  which 
is  comprised  in  the  name  and  duty  of  faith,  that  may  be  with- 
out charity  or  obedience,  and  so  be  useless.  For  the  Socinians 
do  not  make  obedience  to  be  the  essence  of  faith  absolutely, 
but  as  it  justifies.  And  so  they  plead  to  this  purpose,  that 
•'faith  without  works  is  dead."  But  to  suppose  that  a  dead 
faith,  or  that  faith  which  is  dead,  is  that  faith  which  is  required 
of  us  in  the  gospel  in  the  way  of  duty,  is  a  monstrous  imagina- 
tion. Others  plead  for  obedience,  charity,  the  love  of  God,  to 
be  included  in  the  nature  of  faith;  but  plead  not  directly  that 
this  obedience  is  the  form  of  faith,  but  that  which  belongs  to 
the  perfection  of  it,  as  it  is  justifying.  Nor  yet  do  they  say 
that  by  this  obedience,  a  contitmed  course  of  works  and  obe- 
dience, as  though  that  were  necessary  to  our  first  justification, 
is  required;  but  only  a  sincere  active  purpose  of  obedience; 
and  thereon,  as  the  manner  of  our  days  is,  load  them  with  re- 
proaches who  are  otherwise  minded,  if  they  knew  who  they 
were.  For  how  impossible  it  is  according  to  their  principles 
who  believe  justification  by  faith  alone,  that  justifying  faith 
should  be  without  a  sincere  purpose  of  heart  to  obey  God  in 
all  things,  I  shall  briefly  declare.  For  (1)  they  believe  that 
faith  is  not  of  ourselves,  it  is  "  the  gift  of  God;"  yea  that  it  is 
a  grace  wrought  in  the  hearts  of  men  by  the  exceeding  great- 
ness of  his  power.  And  to  suppose  such  a  grace  dead,  inac- 
tive, unfruitful,  not  operative  to  the  great  end  of  the  glory  of 
God,  and  the  transforming  of  the  souls  of  them  that  receive 
it  into  his  image,  is  a  reflection  on  the  wisdom,  goodness  and 
love  of  God  himself.  (2)  That  this  grace  is  in  them  a  principle 
of  spiritual  life;  which  in  the  habit  of  it  as  resident  in  the 
heart,  is  not  really  distinguished  from  that  of  all  other  grace 
whereby  we  live  to  God.  So,  that  there  should  be  faith  habit- 
ually in  the  heart,  (I  mean  that  evangelical  faith  we  inquire 


120  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

after,)  or  actually  exercised,  where  there  is  not  a  habit  of  all 
other  graces,  is  utterly  impossible.  Neither  is  it  possible  that 
there  should  be  any  exercise  of  this  faith  to  justification,  but 
where  the  mind  is  prepared,  disposed,  and  determined  to  uni- 
versal obedience.  And  therefore  (3)  It  is  denied,  that  any 
faith,  trust,  or  confidence  which  may  be  imagined,  so  as  to  be 
absolutely  separable  from,  and  have  its  whole  nature  consist- 
ent with  the  absence  of,  all  other  graces,  is  that  faith  which  is 
the  especial  gift  of  God,  and  which  in  the  gospel  is  required  of 
us  in  a  way  of  duty.  And  whereas  some  have  said,  that  "  men 
may  believe,  and  place  their  firm  trust  in  Christ  for  life  and 
salvation,  and  yet  not  be  justified;"  it  is  a  position  so  destruc- 
tive of  the  gospel,  and  so  full  of  scandal  to  all  pious  souls, 
and  contains  such  an  express  denial  of  the  record  that  God 
hath  given  concerning  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  that  I  wonder  any 
person  of  sobriety  and  learning  should  be  surprised  into  it. 
And  whereas  they  plead  the  experience  of  multitudes  who 
profess  this  firm  faith  and  confidence  in  Christ,  and  yet  are  not 
justified;  it  is  true  indeed,  but  nothing  to  their  purpose.  For 
whatever  they  profess,  not  only,  not  one  of  them  does  so  in 
the  sight  and  judgment  of  God,  where  this  matter  is  to  be  tried, 
but  it  is  no  difficult  matter  to  convict  them  of  the  folly  and 
falseness  of  this  profession,  by  the  light  and  rule  of  the  gospel, 
even  in  their  own  consciences  if  they  would  attend  to  instruc- 
tion. 

Wherefore  we  say  the  faith  whereby  we  are  justified,  is  such 
as  is  not  found  in  any  but  those  who  are  made  partakers  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  by  him  united  to  Christ,  whose  nature  is  re- 
newed, and  in  whom  there  is  a  principle  of  all  grace  and  pur- 
pose of  obedience.  Only  we  say  it  is  not  any  other  grace,  as 
charity  and  the  like,  nor  any  obedience  that  gives  life  and  form 
to  this  faith;  but  it  is  this  faith  that  gives  life  and  efficacy  to 
all  other  graces,  and  form  to  all  evangelical  obedience.  Neither 
does  any  thing  hence  accrue  to  our  adversaries,  who  would 
have  all  those  graces  which  are,  in  their  root  and  principle  at 
least,  present  ui  all  that  are  to  be  justified,  to  have  the  same 
influence  upon  our  justification  as  faith  has;  or  who  say  that 
we  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  and  in  explication  of  it,  in  an- 
swer to  the  reproaches  of  the  Romanists,  say  we  are  justified 
by  faith  alone,  but  not  by  that  faith  which  is  alone; — that  we 
intend  by  faith  all  other  graces  and  obedience  also.  For  besides 
that  the  nature  of  no  other  grace  is  capable  of  that  office 
which  is  assigned  to  faith  in  our  justification,  nor  can  be  as- 


JUSTIFYING    FAITH.  121 

sumed  into  a  society  in  operation  with  it,  namely,  to  receive 
Christ,  and  the  promises  of  life  by  him,  and  to  give  glory  to 
God  on  their  account;  so  when  they  can  give  us  any  testimony 
of  Scripture  assigning  our  justification  to  any  other  grace,  or 
all  graces  together,  or  all  the  fruits  of  them,  as  it  is  assigned 
to  faith,  they  shall  be  attended  to. 

And  this  in  particular  is  to  be  affirmed  of  repentance,  con- 
cerning which  it  is  most  vehemently  urged,  that  it  is  of  the 
same  necessity  to  our  justification  as  faith  is.  For  this  they 
say  is  easily  proved  from  testimonies  of  Scripture  innumerable, 
which  call  all  men  to  repentance  that  will  be  saved;  especially 
those  two  eminent  places  are  insisted  on,  Acts  ii.  38,  39;  iii.  16. 
But  that  which  they  have  to  prove,  is  not  that  it  is  of  the 
same  necessity  with  faith  to  them  that  are  to  be  justified,  but 
that  it  is  of  the  same  use  with  faith  in  their  justification. 
Baptism  in  that  place  of  the  Apostle,  Acts  ii.  38,  39,  is  joined 
with  faith  no  less  than  repentance.  And  in  other  places  it 
is  expressly  put  into  the  same  condition.  Hence  most  of  the 
ancients  concluded  that  it  was  no  less  necessary  to  salvation 
than  faith  or  repentance  itself.  Yet  never  did  any  of  them  as- 
sign it  the  same  use  in  justification  with  faith.  But  it  is  plead- 
ed, whatever  is  a  necessary  condition  of  the  new  covenant,  is 
also  a  necessary  condition  of  justification.  For  otherwise  a 
man  might  be  justified,  and  continuing  in  his  justified  estate 
not  be  saved,  for  want  of  that  necessary  condition.  For  by  a 
necessary  condition  of  the  new  covenant  they  understand  that 
without  which  a  man  cannot  be  saved.  But  of  this  nature  is 
repentance  as  well  as  faith,  and  so  it  is  equally  a  condition  of 
our  justification.  The  ambiguity  of  the  signification  of  the 
word  condition  casts  much  disorder  on  the  present  inquiry,  in 
the  discourses  of  some  men.  But  to  pass  it  by  at  present,  I 
say,  final  perseverance  is  a  necessary  condition  of  the  new  co- 
venant; wherefore  by  this  rule  it  is  also,  of  justification.  They 
say  some  things  are  conditions  absolutely,  such  as  are  faith 
and  repentance,  and  a  purpose  of  obedience:  some  are  so  on 
some  supposition  only;  namely,  that  a  man's  life  be  continued 
in  this  world;  such  is  a  course  in  obedience  and  good  works, 
and  perseverance  to  the  end.  Wherefore  I  say  then,  that  on 
supposition  that  a  man  lives  in  this  world,  perseverance  to  the 
end  is  a  necessary  condition  of  his  justification.  And  if  so,  no 
man  can  be  justified  whilst  he  is  in  this  world.  For  a  condi- 
tion suspends  that  whereof  it  is  a  condition  from  existence, 
until  it  be  accomplished.     It  is  then  to  no  purpose  to  dispute 

11 

i' 


122  JUSTIFYING    FAITH. 

any  longer  about  justification,  if  indeed  no  man  is  nor  can  be 
justified  in  this  life.  But  how  contrary  this  is  to  Scripture  and 
experience  is  known. 

If  it  be  said  that  final  perseverance,  which  is  so  express  a 
condition  of  salvation  in  the  new  covenant,  is  not  indeed  the 
condition  of  our  first  justification,  but  it  is  the  condition  of  the 
continuation  of  our  justification;  then  they  yield  up  their  grand 
position,  that  whatever  is  a  necessary  condition  of  the  new  co- 
venant, is  a  necessary  condition  of  justification;  for  it  is  that 
which  they  call  the  first  justification  alone  which  we  treat 
about.  .  And  that  the  continuation  of  our  justification  depends 
solely  on  the  same  causes  with  our  justification  itself,  shall  be 
afterwards  declared.  But  it  is  not  yet  proved,  nor  ever  will 
be,  that  whatever  is  required  in  them  that  are  to  be  justified,  is 
a  condition  whereon  their  justification  is  immediately  suspend- 
ed. We  allow  that  alone  to  be  a  condition  of  justification 
which  has  an  influence  of  causality  thereto,  though  it  be  but 
the  causality  of  an  instrument.  This  we  ascribe  to  faith  alone. 
And  because  we  do  so,  it  is  pleaded  that  we  ascribe  more  in 
our  justification  to  ourselves  than  they  do  by  whom  we  are  op- 
posed. For  we  ascribe  the  efficiency  of  an  instrument  herein 
to  our  own  faith;  when  they  say  only  that  it  is  a  condition,  or 
causa  si7ie  qua  no7i,  of  our  justification.  But  I  judge  that 
grave  and  wise  men  ought  not  to  give  so  much  to  the  defence 
fof  the  cause  they  have  undertaken,  seeing  they  cannot  but 
know  indeed  the  contrary.  For  after  they  have  given  the  spe- 
cious name  of  a  conditioji  and  a  causa  sine  qua  non,  to  faith, 
they  immediately  take  all  other  graces  and  works  of  obedience 
into  the  same  state  with  it,  and  the  same  use  in  justification; 
and  after  this  seeming  gold  has  been  cast  tor  awhile  into  the 
fire  of  disputation,  there  comes  out  tlie  calf  of  a  personal  in- 
herent righteousness,  whereby  men  are  justified  before  God, 
virtute  foederis  Evangelici;  in  virtue  of  the  Gospel  covenant; 
for  as  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  be  imputed  to  us,  it  is 
gone  into  heaven,  and  they  know  not  what  has  become  of  it. 

Having  given  this  brief  declaration  of  the  nature  of  justify- 
ing faith,  and  the  acts  of  it,  (as  I  suppose  sufficient  to  my  pre- 
sent design)  I  shall  not  trouble  myself  to  give  an  accurate  de- 
finition of  it.  What  are  my  thoughts  concerning  it,  will  be 
better  understood  by  what  has  been  spoken,  than  by  any  pre- 
cise definition  I  can  give.  And  the  truth  is,  definitions  of  jus- 
tifying faith  have  been  so  multiplied  by  learned  men,  and  in  so 
great  variety,  and  such  a  manifest  inconsistency  among  some 


JUSTIFYING   FAITH.  123 

of  them,  that  they  have  been  of  no  advantage  to  the  truth, 
but  occasions  of  new  controversies  and  divisions,  whilst  every 
one  has  laboured  to  defend  the  accuracy  of  his  own  definition, 
when  yet  it  may  be  difficult  for  a  true  believer  to  find  any  thing 
corresponding  with  his  own  experience  in  them;  which  kind 
of  definitions  in  these  things,  I  have  no  esteem  for.  I  know  no 
man  that  has  laboured  in  this  argument  about  the  nature  of  faith 
more  than  Doctor  Jackson;  yet  when  he  has  done  all, he  gives 
us  a  definition  of  justifying  faith,  which  I  know  few  that  will 
subscribe  to;  yet  is  it  in  the  main  scope  of  it  both  pious  and 
sound.  For  he  tells  us:  "  Here  at  length  we  may  define  the 
faith  by  which  the  just  do  live,  to  be  a  firm  and  constant  ad- 
herence to  the  mercies  and  loving  kindness  of  the  Lord,  or  ge- 
nerally to  the  spiritual  food  exhibited  in  his  sacred  word,  as 
much  better  than  this  life  itself,  and  all  the  contentments  it  is 
capable  of,  grounded  on  a  taste  or  relish  of  their  sweetness, 
wrought  in  the  soul  or  heart  of  a  man  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ." 
To  which  he  adds,  "  The  terms  for  the  most  part  are  the  pro- 
phet David's,  not  metaphorical,  as  some  may  fancy,  much  less 
equivocal,  but  proper  and  honiogeneal  to  the  subject  defined." 
Vol.  i.  book  4.  chap.  9.  For  the  lively  Scriptural  expressions 
of  faith,  by  receiving  of  Christ,  leaning  on  him,  rolling  our- 
selves or  our  burden  on  him,  tasting  how  gracious  the  Lord 
is,  and  the  like,  which  of  late  have  been  reproached,  yea  blas- 
phemed by  many,  I  may  have  occasion  to  speak  of  them  after- 
wards; as  also  to  manifest  that  they  convey  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  nature,  work,  and  object  of  justifying  faith,  to 
the  minds  of  men  spiritually  enlightened,  than  the  most  accu- 
rate definitions  that  many  pretend  to;  some  whereof  are  de- 
structive and  exclusive  of  them  all. 


CHAPTER  HL 

THE    USE    OF    FAITH    IN  JUSTIFICATION ;    ITS    ESPECIAL  OBJECT    FURTHER 

CLEARED. 

The  description  before  given  of  justifying  faith  sufficiently 
manifests  of  what  use  it  is  in  justification.  Nor  shall  I  in  ge- 
neral add  much  to  what  may  be  thence  observed  to  that  pur- 


124  USE    OF    FAITH    IN   JUSTIFICATION. 

pose.  But  whereas  this  use  of  it  has  been  expressed  with 
some  variety,  and  several  ways  of  it  asserted  inconsistent  with 
one  another,  they  must  be  considered  in  our  passage.  And  I 
shall  do  it  with  all  brevity  possible;  for  these  things  lead  not 
in  any  part  of  the  controversy  about  the  nature  of  justifica- 
tion, but  are  merely  subservient  to  other  conceptions  concern- 
ing it.  When  men  have  fixed  their  apprehensions  about  the 
principal  matters  in  controversy,  they  express  what  concerns 
the  use  of  faith  in  an  accommodation  thereto.  Supposing  such 
to  be  the  nature  of  justification  as  they  assert,  it  must  be  grant- 
ed that  the  use  of  faith  therein,  must  be  what  they  plead  for. 
And  if  what  is  peculiar  to  any  in  the  substance  of  the  doctrine 
be  disproved,  they  cannot  deny  but  that  their  notions  about  the 
use  of  faith  fall  to  the  ground.  Thus  it  is  with  all  who  affirm 
faith  to  be  either  the  instrument,  or  the  condition,  or  the  causa 
sine  qua  non,  or  the  preparation  and  disposition  of  the  subject, 
or  a  meritorious  cause  by  way  of  condecency  or  congruity,  in 
and  of  our  justification.  For  all  these  notions  of  the  use  of 
faith  are  suited  and  accommodated  to  the  opinions  of  men  con- 
cerning the  nature  and  principal  causes  of  justification.  Neither 
can  any  trial  or  determination  be  made,  as  to  their  truth  and 
propriety,  but  upon  a  previous  judgment  concerning  those 
causes,  and  the  whole  nature  of  justification  itself.  Whereas 
therefore  it  were  vain  and  endless  to  plead  the  principal  matter 
in  controversy  upon  every  thing  that  occasionally  belongs  to  it; 
and  so,  by  the  title  to  the  whole  inheritance,  on  every  cottage 
that  is  built  on  the  premises,  I  shall  briefly  speak  to  these  va- 
rious conceptions  about  the  use  of  faith  in  our  justification, 
rather  to  find  out  and  give  an  understanding  of  what  is  intend- 
ed by  them,  than  to  argue  about  their  truth  and  propriety, 
which  depends  on  that  wherein  the  substance  of  the  contro- 
versy consists. 

Protestant  divines,  until  of  late,  have  unanimously  aflirmed 
faith  to  be  the  ijisJrunisjxlaIjJMJLS£^ot'  our  justification.  So  it  is 
expressed  to  be  in  many  of  the  public  confessions  of  their 
churches.  This  notion  of  theirs  concerning  the  nature  and 
use  of  faith,  was  from  the  first  opposed  by  those  of  the  Roman 
church.  Afterwards  it  was  denied  also  by  the  Socinians,  as 
either  false  or  improper.  And  of  late  this  expression  is  dis- 
liked by  some  among  ourselves;  v/herein  they  follow  Episco- 
pius,  Curcellaeus,  and  others  of  that  way.  Those  who  are  sober 
and  moderate  rather  decline  this  notion  and  expression  as  im- 
proper, than  reject  them  as  untrue.     And  our  safest  course  in 


USE    OF    FAITH    IN    JUSTIFICATION.  125 

these  cases  is  to  consider  what  is  the  thing  or  matter  intended. 
If  that  be  agreed  upon,  he  deserves  best  of  the  truth  who  parts 
with  strife  about  propriety  of  expressions,  before  it  be  meddled 
with.  Tenacious  pleading  about  them  will  surely  render  our 
contentions  endless;  and  none  will  ever  want  an  appearance 
of  probability  to  give  them  countenance  in  what  they  pretend. 
If  our  design  in  teaching  be  the  same  with  that  of  the  Scrip- 
ture, namely,  to  inform  the  minds  of  believers,  and  convey  the 
light  of  the  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ  to  them,  we  must  be 
contented  sometimes  to  make  use  of  such  expressions,  as  will 
scarce  pass  the  ordeal  of  arbitrary  rules  and  distinctions  through 
the  whole  compass  of  notional  and  artificial  sciences.  And 
those  who  without  more  ado  reject  the  instrumentality  of  faith 
in  our  justification  as  an  unscriptural  notion,  as  though  it  were 
easy  for  them  with  one  breath  to  blow  away  the  reasons  and 
arguments  of  so  many  learned  men  as  have  pleaded  for  it,  may 
not,  I  think,  do  amiss  to  review  the  grounds  of  their  confidence. 
For  the  question  being  only  concerning  what  is  intended  by  it, 
it  is  not  enough  that  the  term  or  word  itself  of  an  instrument 
is  not  found  to  this  purpose  in  the  Scripture.  For  on  the  same 
ground  we  may  reject  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Divine  es- 
sence, without  an  acknowledgment  whereof,  not  one  line  of  the 
Scripture  can  be  rightly  understood. 

Those  who  assert  faith  to  be  as  the  instrumental  cause  in  our 
justification,  do  it  with  respect  to  tw_o  ends.  For  first  they  de- 
sign thereby  to  declare  the  meaning  of  those  expressions  in  the 
Scripture,  wherein  we  are  said  to  be  justified  jtistti.,  absolute- 
ly; which  must  denoie  eiihex  instriimentu7n,aut  formam,  aut  < 

niodum  actionis.    Xoyi^of^sOa  oui^  iri^ativ  bcxaiovaOat  etvOpcortov;  Rom. 

iii.  2S.  "Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith." 
So  fita  ftt,iyti(^i,  ver.  22.  ix  Ttiatsur,  Rom.  i.  17.  Gal.  iii.  8.  Sia  tru 
"TToatiMi.  Ephes.  ii.  8.  sx  rct.a'tiui,  xav  8ca  -frji  THatsug,  Rom.  iii.  22,  30. 
That  IS  fide,  ex  fide,  per  fidem;  which  we  can  express  only  by 
faith,  or  through  faith.  Propter  fidem, ox  Sia  7ti,ativ,for  our  faith, 
we  are  no  where  said  to  be  justified.  The  inquiry  is,  what  is 
the  most  proper,  lightsome,  and  convenient  way  of  declaring 
the  meaning  of  these  expressions.  This  the  generality  of  Pro- 
testants judge  to  be  by  an  instrumental  cause.  For  some  kind 
of  causality  they  plainly  intimate,  whereof  the  lowest  and 
meanest  is  that  which  is  instrumental.  For  they  are  used  of 
faith  in  our  justification  before  God,  and  of  no  other  grace  or 
duty  whatever.  Wherefore  the  proper  work  or  office  of  faith 
in  our  justification  is  intended  by  them.     And  ^ta  is  no  where 

*1I 


126 


USE    OF    FAITH    IN    JUSTIFICATION. 


? 


used  in  the  whole  New  Testament  with  a  genitive  case,  (nor 
in  any  other  good  author)  but  it  denotes  an  instrumental  effi- 
ciency at  least.  In  the  Divine  works  of  the  holy  Trinity,  the 
operation  of  the  second  person,  who  is  in  them  a  principal 
efficient,  yet  is  sometimes  expressed  thereby;  it  may  be  to  de- 
note the  order  of  operation  in  the  holy  Trinity  answering  the 
order  of  subsistence,  though  it  be  appUed  to  God  absolutely 
or  the  Father;  Rom.  xi.  35.  8i'  drtov,  "by  him  are  all  things." 
Again  i%  ipyav  vo/xov,  and  ix  rtKr^-ftoj  are  directly  opposed.  Gal.  iii. 
2.  But  when  it  is  said  that  a  man  is  "not  justified,  i^ipy^^v 
vofiov,  by  the  works  of  the  law,"  it  is  acknowledged  by  all 
that  the  meaning  of  the  expression  is  to  exclude  all  efficiency 
in  every  kind  of  such  works  from  our  justification.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  where  in  opposition  hereto,  we  are  said  to  be 
justified  Ix  Tiiatia^,  "  by  faith;"  an  instrumental  efficiency  is 
intended.  Yet  will  I  not  therefore  make  it  my  controversy 
with  any,  that  faith  is  properly  an  instrument,  or  the  instru- 
mental cause  in  or  of  our  justification;  and  so  divert  into  an 
impertinent  contest  about  the  nature  and  kinds  of  instruments 
and  instrumental  causes,  as  they  are  metaphysically  hunted 
with  a  confused  cry  of  futile  terms  and  distinctions.  But  this 
I  judge,  that  among  all  those  notions  of  things  which  may  be 
taken  from  common  use  and  understanding  to  represent  to  our 
minds  the  meaning  and  intention  of  the  Scriptural  expressions 
I  so  often  used,  Tuatei,  ix  Tuatii^i,  hia  rtKJtfioc,  there  is  none  so 
proper  as  this  of  an  instrument  or  instrumental  cause,  seeing 
,  a  causality  is  included  in  them,  and  that  of  any  other  kind  cer- 
tainly excluded;  nor  has  it  any  of  its  own. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  iffaith.be  the  instrumental  cause  of 
justification,  it  is  either  the  instrument  of  God,  or  the  instru- 
'■^  ment  of  believers  themselves.  That  it  is  not  the  instrument 
of  God  is  plain,  in  that  it  is  a  duty  which  he  prescribes  to  us; 
it  is  an  act  of  our  own;  and  it  is  we  that  believe,  not  God;  nor 
can  any  act  of  ours  be  the  instrument  of  his  work.  And  if  it 
be  our  instrument,  seeing  an  efficiency  is  ascribed  to  it,  then 
are  we  the  efficient  causes  of  our  own  justification  in  some 
sense,  and  may  be  said  to  justify  ourselves;  which  is  deroga- 
tory to  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  blood  of  Christ. 

I  confess  that  I  lay  not  much  weight  on  exceptions  of  this 
nature.  For  (1)  notwithstanding  what  is  said  herein,  the 
Scripture  is  express,  that  "  God  justifieth  us  by  faith."  "  It  is 
one  God  which  shall  justify  the  circumcision  U  .tKH'f&.j,  (by  faith) 
and  the  uncircumcision,  6ta  t»jj  rttattcoj,  through  or  by  faith," 


USE    OF    FAITH    IN    JUSTIFICATION.  127 

Rom.  iii.  30.  "The  Scripture  foreseeing  that  God  would  jus- 
tify the  heathen  through  faith,"  Gal.  iii.  8.  As  he  pnrifieth  the 
hearts  of  men  by  faith,  Acts  xv.  9.  Wherefore  faith  in  some 
sense  may  be  said  to  be  the  instrument  of  God  in  our  justifica- 
tion; both  as  it  is  the  means  and  way  ordained  and  appointed 
by  him  on  our  part,  whereby  we  shall  be  justified,  as  also 
because  he  bestows  it  on  us,  and  works  it  in  us  to  this  end 
that  we  may  be  justified;  for  "  by  grace  we  are  saved,  through 
faith,  and  that  not  of  ourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God,"  Ephes. 
iii.  S.  If  any  one  shall  now  say,  that  on  these  accounts,  or 
with  respect  to  Divine  ordination  and  operation  concurring 
to  our  justification,  faith  is  the  instrument  of  God  in  its  place 
and  way,  (as  the  gospel  also  is,  Rom.  i.  l(j,  and  the  ministers 
of  it,  2  Cor.  V.  18.  1  Tim.  iv.  6,  and  the  sacraments  also,  Rom. 
iv.  11.  Tit.  iii.  5,  in  their  several  places  and  kinds)  to  our  jus- 
tification, it  may  be  he  will  contribute  to  a  right  conception  of 
the  work  of  God  herein,  as  much  as  those  shall  by  whom  it  is 
denied. 

But  that  which  is  principally  intended  is,  that  it  is  the  instru- 
ment of  them  that  believe.  Neither  yet  are  they  said  hereon 
to  justify  themselves.  For  whereas  it  neither  really  produces 
the  effect  of  justification  by  a  physical  operation,  nor  can  do 
so,  it  being  a  pure  sovereign  act  of  God;  nor  is  morally  any 
way  meritorious  thereof,  nor  disposes  the  subject  wherein  it  is 
to  the  introduction  of  an  inherent  formal  cause  of  justification, 
there  being  no  such  thing  ifi  rerutn  naiura,  nor  has  any  other 
physical  or  moral  respect  to  the  effect  of  jiastification,  but  what 
arises  merely  from  the  constitution  and  appointment  of  God, 
there  is  no  colour  of  reason  from  the  instrumentality  of  faith 
asserted,  to  ascribe  the  effect  of  justification  to  any,  but  to  the 
principal  efficient  cause,  which  is  God  alone,  and  from  whom 
it  proceeds  in  a  way  of  free  and  sovereign  grace,  disposing  the 
order  of  things,  and  the  relation  of  them  one  to  another,  as 
seems  good  to  him.  i^kxaiovixivoi  Su^pm^  tri  av-tov  ;^api.T't,  Rom.  iii. 
24.  5ia  trii  TTiattoji  iv  rco  tov  Xpiatov  ^cixati,  ver.  25.  It  is  there- 
fore the  ordinance  of  God  prescribing  our  duty,  that  we  may 
be  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  having  its  use  and  operation 
towards  that  end  after  the  manner  of  an  instrument,  as  we 
shall  see  further  immediately.  Wherefore  so  far  as  I  can  dis- 
cern, they  contribute  nothing  to  the  real  understandmg  of 
this  truth,  who  deny  faith  to  be  the  instrumental  cause  of  our 
justification,  and  oti  other  grounds  assert  it  to  be  the  condition 
thereof,  unless  they  can  prove  that  this  is  a  more  natural  ex- 


128  USE    OF    FAITH    IN   JUSTIFICATION. 

position  of  those  expressions  Tttatsi,  ix  rtia-csc^;,  6ta  ttji  fticmsui, 
which  is  the  first  thing  to  be  inquired  after.  For  all  that  we 
do  in  this  matter  is  but  to  endeavour  a  right  understanding  of 
Scripture  propositions  and  expressions,  unless  we  intend  to 
wander  extra  oleas,  and  lose  ourselves  in  a  maze  of  uncertain 
conjectures. 

Secondly,  they  designed  to  declare  the  use  of  faith  in  jus- 
tification, expressed  in  the  Scripture  by  apprehending  and  re- 
ceiving of  Christ,  or  his  righteousness,  and  remission  of  sins 
thereby.     The  words  whereby  this  use  of  faith  in  our  justifica- 
tion is  expressed  are  xa^fiavu,  7tapa-Kay.6avu,  and  xata'Kafi^avi^.  And 
the  constant  use  of  them  in  the  Scripture  is  to  take  or  receive 
what  is  offered,  tendered,  given  or  granted  to  us;  or  to  appre- 
hend and  lai/  hold  of  any  thing  thereby  to  make  it  our  own, 
as  sTtaafi^avofiai,  is  also  used  in  the  same  sense,  Heb.  ii.  16.    So 
are  we  said  by  faith  to  receive  Christ,  John  i.  12.  Col.  ii.  6. 
"The  abundance  of  grace  and  the  gift  of  righteousness,"  Rom. 
v.  17.     '-The  word  of  promise,"  Acts  ii.  41.     "  The  word  of 
God,"  Acts  viii.  14;  1  Thess.  i.  6;  ii.  13.     "The  atonement" 
made  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  Rom.   v.  11.     "The  forgiveness 
of  sins,"  Acts  x.  43;  xxvi.  IS.     "  The  promise  of  the  Spirit," 
Gai.  iii.  14.     "The  promises,"  Heb.   ix.   15.     There  is  there- 
fore nothing  that  concurs  to  our  justification,  but  we  receive  it 
by  faith.     And  unbelief  is  expressed  by  not  receiving,  John 
i.  11;  iii.  11;  xii.  48;  xiv.  17.     Wherefore  the  object  of  faith 
in  our  justification,  that  whereby  we  are  justified,  is  tendered, 
granted,  and  given  to  us  of  God,  the  use  of  faith  being  to  lay 
hold  upon  it,  to  receive  it,  so  that  it  may  be  our  own.     What 
we  receive  of  outward  things  that  are  so  given  to  us,  we  do 
it  by  our  hand,  which  is  therefore  the  instrument  of  that  re- 
ception, that  whereby  we  apprehend  or  lay  hold  of  any  thing 
to  appropriate  it  to  ourselves;  and  that  because  this  is  the  pe- 
culiar office  which  by  nature  it  is  assigned  to  among  all  the 
members  of  the  body.     Other  uses  it  has,  and  other  members 
on  other  accounts  may  be  as  useful  to  the  body  as  it;  but  it 
alone  is  the  instrument  of  receiving  and  apprehending  that 
which  being  given,  is  to  be  made  our  own  and  to  abide  with  us. 
Whereas  therefore  the  righteousness  wherewith  we  are  justi- 
fied is  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  tendered  to  us  in  the  promise 
of  the  gospel,  the  use  and  office  of  faith  being  to  receive,  ap- 
prehend, or  lay  hold  of  and  appropriate  this  righteousness,  I 
know  not  how  it  can  be  better  expressed  than  by  an  instru- 
ment, nor  by  what  notion  of  it,  more  light  of  understanding 


USE    OF    FAITH    IN   JUSTIFICATION.  129 

may  be  conveyed  to  our  minds.  Some  may  suppose  otlier  no-  *  '' 
tions  are  meet  to  express  it  by  on  other  accounts;  and  it  may 
be  so  with  respect  to  other  uses  of  it.  But  the  sole  present 
inquiry  is,  how  it  shall  be  declared,  as  that  which  receives 
Christ,  the  atonement,  the  gift  of  righteousness,  which  will 
prove  its  only  use  in  our  justification.  He  that  can  better 
express  this  than  by  an  instrument,  ordained  of  God  to  this 
end,  all  whose  use  depends  on  that  ordination  of  God,  will  de- 
serve well  of  the  truth.  It  is  true  that  all  those  who  place  the 
formal  cause  or  reason  of  our  justification  in  ourselves,  or  our 
inherent  righteousness,  and  so  either  directly  or  by  just  con- 
sequence deny  all  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to 
our  justification,  are  not  capable  of  admitting  faith  to  be  an 
instrument  in  this  work,  nor  are  pressed  with  this  considera- 
tion. For  they  acknowledge  not  that  we  receive  a  righteous- 
ness which  is  not  our  own  by  way  of  gift,  whereby  we  are 
justified,  and  so  cannot  allow  of  any  instrument  whereby  it 
should  be  received.  The  righteousness  itself  being  as  they 
phrase  it  putative,  imaginary,  a  chimera,  a  fiction,  it  can  have 
no  real  accidents,  nothing  that  can  be  really  predicated  con- 
cerning it.  Wherefore  as  was  said  at  the  entrance  of  this  dis- 
course, the  truth  and  propriety  of  this  declaration  of  the  use  of 
faith  in  our  justification  by  an  instrumental  cause,  depends  on 
the  substance  of  the  doctrine  itself  concerning  the  nature  and 
principal  causes  of  it,  with  which  they  must  stand  or  fall.  If 
we  are  justified  through  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  which  faith  alone  apprehends  and  receives,  it  will  not 
be  denied  but  that  it  is  rightly  enough  placed  as  the  instru- 
mental cause  of  our  justification.  And  if  we  are  justified  by 
an  inherent  evangelical  righteousness  of  our  own,  faith  may 
be  the  condition  of  its  imputation,  or  a  disposition  for  its  in- 
troduction, or  a  congruous  merit  of  it,  but  an  instrument  it 
cannot  be.  But  yet  for  the  present  it  has  this  double  advan- 
tage, (1)  That  it  best  and  most  appositely  answers  what  is 
affirmed  of  the  use  of  faith  in  our  justification,  in  the  Scrip- 
ture, as  the  instances  given  manifest;  (2)  That  no  other  no-  -^ 
tion  of  it  can  be  so  stated,  but  that  it  must  be  apprehended  in  / 
order  of  time  to  be  previous  to  justification,  which  justifying  _ 
faith  catmpt  be,  unless  a  man  may  be  a  true  believer  with  jus- 
tifying faith,  and  yet  not  be  justified. 

Some  plead  that  faith  is  the  condition  of  our  justification, 
and  that  otherwise  it  is  not  to  be  conceived  of.  As  I  said  be- 
fore, so  I  say  again,  I  shall  not  contend  with  any  man  about 


130  USE    OF    FAITH    IN    JUSTIFICATION. 

t  words,  terms,  or  expressions,  so  long  as  what  is  intended  by 
them,  is  agreed  upon.  And  there  is  an  obvious  sense  wherein 
faith  may  be  called  the  condition  of  our  justification.  For  no 
more  may  be  intended  thereby,  but  that  it  is  the  duty  on  our 
part  whicli  God  requires,  that  we  may  be  justified.  And  this 
the  whole  Scripture  bears  witness  to.  Yet  this  hindereth 
not,  but  that  as  to  its  use,  it  may  be  the  instrument  whereby 
we  apprehend  or  receive  Christ  and  his  righteousness.  But  to 
assert  it  the  condition  of  our  justification,  or  that  we  are  justi- 
fied by  it  as  the  condition  of  the  new  covenant,  so  as  from  a 
pre-conceived  signification  of  that  word,  to  give  it  another  use 
in  justification  exclusive  of  that  pleaded  for,  as  the  instrumental 
cause  thereof,  is  not  easily  to  be  admitted;  because  it  supposes 
an  alteration  in  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  itself 

The  word  is  nowhere  used  in  the  Scripture  in  this  matter; 
which  I  argue  no  further,  but  that  we  have  no  certain  rule  or 
standard  to  try  and  measure  its  signification  by.  Wherefore 
it  cannot  first  be  introduced  in  what  sense  men  please,  and 
then  that  sense  turned  into  argument  for  other  ends.  For  thus 
on  a  supposed  concession,  that  it  is  the  condition  of  our  justi- 
fication, some  heighten  it  into  a  subordinate  righteousness, 
imputed  to  us,  antecedently  as  I  suppose,  to  the  imputation  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  in  any  sense,  whereof  it  is  the  con- 
dition. And  some  who  pretend  to  lessen  its  efficiency  or  dig- 
nity in  the  use  of  it  in  our  justification  say,  it  is  only  causa 
sine  qua  non,  which  leaves  us  at  as  great  an  uncertainty  as  to 
the  nature  and  efficacy  of  this  condhion  as  we  were  before. 
Nor  is  the  true  sense  of  things  at  all  illustrated,  but  rather 
darkened  by  such  notions. 

If  we  may  introduce  words  into  religion  nowhere  used  in 
the  Scripture  (as  we  may  and  must,  if  we  design  to  bring  light, 
and  communicate  proper  apprehensions  of  the  things  contained 
to  the  minds  of  men)  yet  are  we  not  to  take  along  with  them 
arbitrary  preconceived  senses,  forged  either  among  lawyers, 
or  in  the  peripatetical  school.  The  use  of  them  in  the  most 
approved  authors  of  the  language  whereto  they  belong,  and 
their  common  vulgar  acceptation  among  ourselves,  must  deter- 
mine their  sense  and  meaning.  It  is  known  what  confusion 
in  the  minds  of  men,  the  introduction  of  words  into  ecclesiasti- 
cal doctrines,  of  whose  signification  there  has  not  been  a  certain 
determinate  rule  agreed  on,  has  produced.  So  the  word  merit 
was  introduced  by  some  of  the  ancients,  (as  is  plain  from  the 
design  of  their  discourses  wiiere  they  use  it)  for  impetration  or 


USE    OF    FAITH    IN    JUSTIFICATION.  131 

acquisition  quovis  modo;  by  any  means  whatever.  But  there 
being  no  cogent  reason  to  confine  the  word  to  that  precise  sig- 
nification, it  has  given  occasion  to  as  great  a  corruption  as  has 
befallen  the  Christian  religion.  We  must  therefore  make  use 
of  the  best  means  we  have  to  understand  the  meaning  of  this 
word,  and  what  is  intended  by  it,  before  we  admit  of  its  use 
in  this  case. 

Conditio  in  the  best  Latin  writers  is  variously  used;  an- 
swering xtt'T'affT'atjcf,  tvxr^,  (i|ta,  ai-tia,  avvdy;xt]  in  the  Greek:  that 
is,  Status,  fortuna,  dignitas,  causa,  pactum  iiiitum.  In 
which  of  these  significations  it  is  here  to  be  understood  is  not 
easy  to  be  determined.  In  common  use  among  us,  it  some- 
times denotes  the  state  and  quality  of  men,  that  is,  xanaataai'; 
and  d|ia,  and  sometimes  a  valuable  consideration  of  what  is 
to  be  done;  that  is,  aitia  or  awerjxr;.  But  herein  it  is  applied 
to  things  in  great  variety;  sometimes  the  principal  procuring 
purchasing  cause  is  so  expressed.  As  the  condition  whereon 
a  man  lends  another  an  hundred  pounds,  is  that  he  be  paid  it 
again  with  interest.  The  condition  whereon  a  man  conveys 
his  land  to  another,  is,  that  he  receive  so  much  money  for  it. 
So  a  condition  is  a  valuable  consideration.  And  sometimes  it 
signifies  such  things  as  are  added  to  the  principal  cause  where- 
on its  operation  is  suspended.  As  a  man  bequeaths  an  hun- 
dred pounds  to  another,  on  condition  that  he  come  or  go  to 
such  a  place  to  demand  it.  This  is  no  valuable  consideration, 
yet  is  the  effect  of  the  principal  cause,  or  the  will  of  llie  testa- 
tor suspended  thereon.  And  as  to  degrees  of  respect  to  that 
whereof  any  thing  is  a  condition,  as  to  purchase,  procurement, 
valuable  consideration,  necessary  presence,  the  variety  is  end- 
less. We  therefore  cannot  obtain  a  determinate  sense  of  this 
word  condition,  but  from  a  particular  declaration  of  what  is 
intended  by  it  wherever  it  is  used.  And  although  this  be  not 
sufficient  to  exclude  the  use  of  it  from  the  declaration  of  the 
way  and  manner  how  we  are  justified  by  faith,  yet  is  it  so  to 
exclude  the  imposition  of  any  precise  signification  of  it,  any 
other  than  is  given  it  by  the  matter  treated  of.  Without  this 
every  thing  is  left  ambiguous  and  uncertain  whereto  it  is  ap- 
plied. 

For  instance;  it  is  commonly  said  that  faith  and  new  obe- 
dience are  the  condition  of  the  new  covenant.  But  yet  be- 
cause of  the  ambiguous  signification  and  various  use  of  that 
term  condition  we  cannot  certainly  understand  what  is  intend- 
ed in  the  assertion.     If  no  more  be  intended,  but  that  God  in 


132  USE    OF    FAITH    IN   JUSTIFICATION. 

and  by  the  new  covenant  indispensably  requires  these  things 
of  us,  that  is,  the  restipulation  of  a  good  conscience  towards 
God  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead,  in  order  to 
his  own  glory,  and  our  full  enjoyment  of  all  the  benefits  of  it, 
it  is  unquestionably  true.  But  if  it  be  intended,  that  they  are 
such  a  condition  of  the  covenant,  as  to  be  by  us  performed 
antecedently  to  the  participation  of  any  grace,  mercy,  or  pri- 
vilege of  it,  so  that  they  should  be  the  consideration  and  pro- 
curing causes  of  them,  that  they  should  be  all  of  them,  as 
some  speak,  the  reward  of  our  faith  and  obedience,  it  is  most 
false,  and  not  only  contrary  to  express  testimonies  of  Scrip- 
ture, but  destructive  of  the  nature  of  the  covenant  itself.  If 
it  be  intended  that  these  things,  though  promised  in  the  coven- 
ant and  wrought  in  us  by  the  grace  of  God,  are  yet  duties  re- 
quired of  us  in  order  to  the  participation  and  enjoyment  of  the 
full  end  of  the  covenant  in  glory,  it  is  the  truth  which  is  as- 
serted. But  if  it  be  said  that  faith  and  new  obedience,  that  is 
the  works  of  righteousness  which  we  do,  are  so  the  condition 
of  the  covenant,  as  that  whatever  the  one  is  ordained  of  God 
as  a  means  of,  and  in  order  to  such  or  such  an  end,  as  justi- 
fication, that  the  other  is  likewise  ordained  to  the  same  end, 
with  the  same  kind  of  etlicacy,  or  with  the  same  respect  to  the 
effect,  it  is  expressly  contrary  to  the  whole  scope  and  express 
design  of  the  Apostle  on  that  subject.  But  it  will  be  said  that 
a  condition  in  the  sense  intended,  when  faith  is  said  to  be  the 
condition  of  our  justification,  is  no  more  but  that  it  is  causa 
sine  qua  non;  which  is  easy  enough  to  be  apprehended.  But 
yet  neither  are  we  so  delivered  out  of  uncertainties,  into  a  plain 
understanding  of  what  is  intended.  For  these  causae  sine  qui- 
bus  non,  may  be  taken  largely  or  more  strictly  and  precisely. 
So  are  they  commonly  distinguished  by  the  masters  in  these 
arts.  Those  so  called  in  a  larger  sense,  are  all  such  causes  in 
any  kind  of  efficiency  or  merit,  as  are  inferior  to  pi-incipal 
causes,  and  woidd  operate  nothing  without  them,  but  in  con- 
junction with  them  have  a  real  etfective  influence,  physical  or 
moral,  upon  the  production  of  the  eff"ect.  And  if  we  take  a 
condition  to  be  a  cansa  sine  qua  non,  in  this  sense,  we  are 
still  at  a  loss  what  may  be  its  use,  efficiency  or  merit,  with  re- 
spect to  our  justification.  If  it  be  taken  more  strictly  for  that 
which  is  necessarily  present,  but  has  no  causality  in  any  kind, 
not  that  of  a  receptive  instrument,  I  cannot  understand  how 
it  should  be  an  ordinance  of  God.  For  every  thing  that  he  has 
appointed  to  any  end  moral  or  spiritual,  has  by  virtue  of  that 


USE    OF    FAITH    IN    JUSTIFICATION.  133 

appointment,  either  a  symbolical  instructive  efficacy,  or  an  ac- 
tive efficiency,  or  a  rewardable  condecency  with  respect  to  that 
end.  Other  things  may  be  generally  and  remotely  necessary 
to  such  an  end,  so  far  as  it  partakes  of  the  order  of  natural 
beings,  which  are  not  ordinances  of  God  with  respect  thereto, 
and  so  have  no  kind  of  causality  with  respect  to  it,  as  it  is  mo- 
ral or  spiritual.  So  the  air  we  breathe  is  needful  to  the  preach- 
ing of  the  word,  and  consequently  a  causa  sine  qua  non  there- 
of; but  an  ordinance  of  God  with  especial  respect  thereto  it  is 
not.  But  every  thing  that  he  appoints  to  an  especial  spiritual 
end,  has  an  efficacy  or  operation  in  one  or  other  of  the  ways 
mentioned.  For  they  either  concur  with  the  principal  cause 
in  its  internal  efficiency,  or  they  operate  externally  in  the  re- 
moval of  obstacles  and  hinderances  that  oppose  the  principal 
cause  in  its  efficiency.  And  this  excludes  all  causes  .y/ne  quihus 
non  strictly  so  taken,  from  any  place  among  divine  ordinances. 
God  appoints  nothing  for  an  end  that  shall  do  nothing.  His 
sacraments  are  not  dpya  arifisia,  unmeaning  signs,  but  by  virtue 
of  his  institution  they  exhibit  that  grace  which  they  do  not  in 
themselves  contain.  The  preaching  of  the  word  has  a  real 
efficiency  to  all  the  ends  of  it;  so  have  all  the  graces  and  duties 
that  he  works  in  us,  and  requires  of  us;  by  them  all  are  we 
"  made  meet  for  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light;''  and 
our  whole  obedience  through  his  gracious  appointment  has  a 
rewardable  condecency  with  respect  to  eternal  life.  Wherefore 
as  faith  may  be  allowed  to  be  the  condition  of  our  justification, 
if  no  more  be  intended  thereby,  but  that  it  is  what  God  re- 
quires of  us  that  we  may  be  justified;  so  to  confine  the  declara- 
tion of  its  use  in  our  justification  to  its  being  the  condition  of 
it,  when  so  much  as  a  determinate  signification  of  it  cannot  be 
agreed  upon,  is  subservient  only  to  the  interest  of  unprofitable 
strife  and  contention. 

To  close  these  discourses  concerning  faith  and  its  use  in  our 
justification,  some  things  must  yet  be  added  concerning  its  es- 
pecial object.  For  although  what  has  been  spoken  already 
thereon,  in  the  description  of  its  nature  and  object  in  general, 
be  sufficient  in  general  to  state  its  especial  object  also;  yet  there 
having  been  an  inquiry  concerning  it,  and  debate  about  it  in  a 
peculiar  notion,  and  under  some  especial  terms,  that  also  must 
be  considered.  And  this  is  whether  justifymg  faith  in  our  jus- 
tification or  its  use  therein,  do  respect  Christ  as  a  king  and  pro- 
phet, as  well  as  a  priest,  with  the  satisfaction  that  as  such  he 
made  for  us,  and  ihai  in  the  same  manner,  and  to  the  same 

12 


134  USE    OF    FAITH    IN   JUSTIFICATION. 

ends  and  purposes.  And  I  shall  be  brief  in  this  inquiry,  be- 
cause it  is  but  a  late  controversy,  and  it  may  be  has  more 
of  curiosity  in  its  disquisition,  than  of  edification  in  its  deter- 
mination. However  being  not,  that  I  know  of,  under  these 
terms  stated  in  any  public  confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches, 
it  is  free  for  any  to  express  their  apprehensions  concerning  it. 
And  to  this  purpose  I  say: 

1.  Faith  whereby  we  are  justified  in  the  receiving  of  Christ, 
principally  respects  his  person  for  all  those  ends  for  which  he 
is  the  ordinance  of  God.  It  does  not  in  the  first  place,  as  it  is 
faith  in  general,  respect  his  person  absolutely,  seeing  its  formal 
object  as  such,  is  the  truth  of  God  in  the  proposition,  and  not 
the  thing  itself  proposed.  Wherefore  it  so  respects  and  receives 
Christ  as  proposed  in  the  promise;  the  promise  itself  being  the 
formal  object  of  its  assent. 

2.  We  cannot  so  receive  Christ  in  the  promise,  as  in  that  act 
of  receiving  him  to  exclude  the  consideration  of  any  of  his 
offices.  For  as  he  is  not  at  any  time  to  be  considered  by  us, 
but  as  vested  with  all  his  offices,  so  a  distinct  conception  of  the 
mind  to  receive  Christ  as  a  priest,  but  not  as  a  king  or  prophet, 
is  not  faith  but  unbelief,  not  the  receiving  but  the  rejecting  of 
him. 

3.  In  the  receiving  of  Christ  for  justification  formally,  our 
distinct  express  design  is  to  be  justified  thereby,  and  no  more. 
Now  to  be  justified  is  to  be  freed  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  or  to 
have  all  our  sins  pardoned,  and  to  have  a  righteousness  where- 
with to  appear  before  God,  so  as  to  be  accepted  with  him,  and 
a  right  to  the  heavenly  inheritance.  Every  believer  has  other 
designs  also,  wherein  he  is  equally  concerned  with  this;  as 
namely,  the  renovation  of  his  nature,  the  sanctification  of  his 
person,  and  ability  to  live  to  God  in  all  holy  obedience.  But 
the  things  before  mentioned  are  all  that  he  aims  at  or  designs 
in  his  applications  to  Christ,  or  his  receiving  of  him  to  justifica- 
tion.    Wherefore, 

4.  Justifying  faith  in  that  act  or  work  of  it  whereby  we  are 
justified,  respects  Christ  in  his  priestly  office  alone,  as  he  was 
the  surety  of  the  covenant,  with  what  he  did  in  the  discharge 
thereof.  The  consideration  of  his  other  offices  is  not  excluded, 
but  it  is  not  formally  comprised  in  the  object  of  faith  as  jus- 
tifying. 

5.  When  we  say  that  the  sacerdotal  office  of  Christ,  or  the 
blood  of  Christ,  or  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  is  that  alone  which 
faith  respects  in  justification,  we  do  not  exclude,  yea  we  do 


USE    OF    FAITH    IN    JUSTIFICATION.  135 

really  include  and  comprise  in  that  assertion,  all  that  depends 
thereon,  or  concnrs  to  make  them  effectual  to  our  justification. 
As  (1)  the  free  grace  and  favour  of  God  in  giving  Christ  for 
us  and  to  us,  whereby  we  are  frequently  said  to  be  justified, 
Rom.  iii.  24.  Ephes.  ii.  8.  Tit.  iii.  7.  His  wisdom,  love,  right- 
eousness and  power,  are  of  the  same  consideration,  as  has  been 
declared.  (2)  Whatever  in  Christ  himself  was  necessary  ante- 
cedently to  his  discharge  of  that  office,  or  was  consequential 
thereof,  or  necessarily  accompanied  it.  Such  was  his  incar- 
nation, the  whole  course  of  his  obedience,  his  resurrection,  as- 
cension, exaltation  and  intercession.  For  the  consideration  of 
all  these  things  is  inseparable  from  the  discharge  of  his  priestly 
office.  And  therefore  is  justification  either  expressly  or  vir- 
tually assigned  to  them  also.  Gen.  iii.  15.  I  John  iii.  8.  Heb. 
ii.  13 — 16.  Rom.  iv.  25.  Acts  v.  31.  Heb.  vii,  27.  Rom.  viii. 
34.  But  yet  wherever  our  justification  is  so  assigned  to  them, 
they  are  not  absolutely  considered,  but  with  respect  to  their  re- 
lation to  his  sacrifice  and  satisfaction.  (3)  All  the  means  of 
the  application  of  the  sacrifice  and  righteousness  of  the  Lord 
Christ  to  us  are  also  included  therein.  Such  is  the  principal 
efficient  cause  thereof,  whicli  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whence  we 
are  said  to  be  "justified  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God,"  1  Cor.  vi.  11;  and  the  instru- 
mental cause  thereof  on  the  part  of  God,  which  is  the  promise 
of  the  gospel,  Rom.  i.  17.  Gal.  iii.  22,  23.  It  would  therefore 
be  unduly  pretended,  that  by  this  assertion  we  narrow  or 
straiten  the  object  of  justifying  faith  as  it  justifies.  For  indeed 
we  assign  a  respect  to  the  whole  mediatory  office  of  Christ,  not 
excluding  the  kingly  and  prophetical  parts  thereof;  but  only 
such  a  notion  of  them,  as  would  not  bring  in  more  of  Christ. 
but  much  of  ourselves  into  our  justification.  And  the  asser- 
tion as  laid  down  may  be  proved, 

1.  From  the  experience  of  all  that  are  justified,  or  who  seek 
for  justification  according  to  the  gospel.  For  under  this  notion 
of  seeking  for  justification,  or  a  righteousness  for  justification, 
they  were  all  of  them  to  be  considered,  and  do  consider  them- 
selves as  v7io8i,xoi,  ti^  ©fco,  guilty  before  God,  subject,  obnoxious, 
liable  to  his  wrath  in  the  curse  of  the  law;  as  we  declared  in 
the  entrance  of  this  discourse,  Rom.  iii  19.  They  were  all  in 
the  same  state  that  Adam  was  in  after  the  fall,  to  whom  God 
proposed  the  relief  of  the  incarnation  and  suffering  of  Christ, 
Gen.  iii.  15.  And  to  seek  after  justification,  is  to  seek  after  a 
discharge  from  this  woful  state  and  condition.     Such  persons 


136  USE    OP    FAITH    IN    JUSTIFICATIOTf. 

have  and  ought  to  have  other  designs  and  desires  also.  For 
whereas  the  state  wherein  they  are,  antecedent  to  their  justifi- 
cation, is  not  only  a  state  of  guilt  and  wrath,  but  such  also  as 
wherein,  through  the  depravity  of  their  nature,  the  power  of 
sin  is  prevalent  in  them,  and  their  whole  souls  are  defiled, 
they  design  and  desire  not  only  to  be  justified,  but  to  be  sanc- 
tified also.  But  as  to  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  the  want  of  a  right- 
eousness before  God,  from  which  justification  is  their  relief, 
herein  I  say  they  have  respect  to  Christ,  as  set  forth  to  be  a 
propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood.  In  their  design  for 
sanctification  they  have  respect  to  the  kingly  and  prophetical 
offices  of  Christ,  in  their  especial  exercise.  But  as  to  their 
freedom  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  their  acceptance  with  God, 
or  their  justification  in  his  sight,  that  they  may  be  freed  from 
condemnation,  that  they  may  not  come  into  judgment;  it  is 
Christ  crucified,  it  is  Christ  lifted  up  as  the  brazen  serpent  in 
the  wilderness,  it  is  the  blood  of  Christ,  it  is  the  propitiation 
that  he  was,  and  the  atonement  that  he  made,  it  is  his  bearing 
their  sins,  his  being  made  sin  and  the  curse  for  them,  it  is  his 
obedience,  the  end  which  he  put  to  sin,  and  the  everlasting 
righteousness  which  he  brought  in,  that  alone  their  faith  fixes 
upon  and  acquiesces  in.  If  it  be  otherwise  in  the  experience 
of  any,  I  acknowledge  I  am  not  acquainted  with  it.  I  do  not 
say  that  conviction  of  sin  is  the  only  antecedent  condition  of 
actual  justification.  But  this  it  is  that  makes  a  sinner  subjectum 
capax  justijicaiionis,  a  fit  subject  of  justification.  No  man, 
therefore  is  to  be  considered  as  a  person  to  be  justified,  but  he 
who  is  actually  under  the  power  of  the  conviction  of  sin,  with 
all  the  necessary  consequents  thereof.  Suppose  therefore  any 
sinner  in  this  condition,  as  it  is  described  by  the  Apostle,  Rom. 
iii.  guilty  before  God,  with  his  mouth  stopped  as  to  any  pleas, 
defences  or  excuses;  suppose  him  to  seek  after  a  relief  and  de- 
iiverance  out  of  this  estate,  that  is,  to  be  justified  according  to 
the  gospel;  he  neither  does,  nor  can  wisely  take  any  other 
course  than  what  he  is  there  directed  to  by  the  same  Apostle, 
ver.  .20 — 26.  "  Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall 
no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight;  for  by  the  law  is  the  know- 
ledge of  sin.  But  now  the  righteousness  of  God  without  the 
law  is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets; 
even  the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ  unto  all,  and  upon  all  them  that  believe,  for  there  is  no 
difi'erence;  for  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  (he  glory  of 
God;  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemp- 


rSK    OF    FAITH    IX    JUSTIFICATION.  137 

tion  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ;  whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a 
propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  right- 
eousness for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the 
forbearance  of  God."     Whence  I  argue: 

That  which  a  guilty  condemned  sinner,  finding  no  hope,  nor 
relief  from  the  law  of  God,  the  sole  rule  of  all  his  obedience, 
betakes  himself  to  by  faith  that  he  may  be  delivered  or  justi- 
fied, that  is  the  especial  object  of  faith  as  justifying.  But  this 
is  the  grace  of  God  alone  through  the  redemption  that  is  in 
Christ,  or  Christ  proposed  as  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his 
blood.  Either  this  is  so,  or  the  Apostle  does  not  aright  guide 
the  souls  and  consciences  of  men  in  that  condition  wherein  he 
himself  places  them.  It  is  the  blood  of  Christ  alone  that  he 
directs  the  faith  to  of  all  them  that  would  be  justified  before 
God.  Grace,  redemption,  propitiation,  all  through  the  blood 
of  Christ,  faith  peculiarly  respects  and  fixes  upon.  This  is 
that,  if  I  mistake  not,  which  they  will  confirm  by  their  expe- 
rience, who  have  made  any  distinct  observation  of  the  actings 
of  their  faith  in  their  justification  before  God. 

2.  The  Scripture  plainly  declares  that  faith  as  justifying,  re- 
spects the  sacerdotal  office  and  actings  of  Christ  alone.  In  the 
great  representation  of  the  justification  of  the  church  of  old  in 
the  expiatory  sacrifice,  when  all  their  sins  and  iniquities  were 
pardoned,  and  their  persons  accepted  with  God,  the  acting  of 
their  faith  was  limited  to  the  imposition  of  all  their  sins  on  the 
head  of  the  sacrifice  by  the  high  priest.  Lev.  xvi.  "  By  his 
knowledge,"  that  is  faith  in  him,  "shall  my  righteous  servant 
justify  many,  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities,"  Isa.  liii.  11. 
That  alone  which  faith  respects  in  Christ  as  to  the  justification 
of  sinners,  is  his  bearing  their  iniquities.  Guilty  convinced 
sinners  look  to  him  by  faith,  as  those  who  were  stung  with 
fiery  serpents  did  to  the  brazen  serpent;  that  is,  as  he  was 
lifted  up  on  the  cross,  John  iii.  l4,  15.  So  did  he  himself  ex- 
press the  nature  and  actings  of  faith  in  our  justification,  Rom. 
iii.  24,  25.  "Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ,  whom  God  hath  set  forth 
to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood."  As  he  is  a 
propitiation,  as  he  shed  his  blood  for  us,  as  we  have  redemp- 
tion thereby,  he  is  the  peculiar  object  of  our  faith,  with  respect 
to  our  justification.  See  to  the  same  purpose,  Rom.  v.  9,  10; 
viii.  3,  4.  Ephes.  i.  7;  ii.  13 — 16.  Col.  i.  14.  "He  was  made 
sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  him,"  2  Cor.  v.  21.     That  which  we  seek 

12* 


138  USE    OF    FAITH    IN    JUSTIFICATION. 

after  in  justification  is  a  participation  of  the  rigiiteousness  of 
God;  to  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God,  and  that  not  in  our- 
selves but  in  another,  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  that  alone 
which  is  proposed  to  our  faith  as  the  means  and  cause  of  it,  is, 
his  being  "  made  sin"  for  us,  or  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  wherein  all 
the  guilt  of  our  sins  was  laid  on  him,  and  he  bare  all  our  ini- 
quities. This  therefore  is  its  peculiar  object  herein.  And 
wherever  in  the  Scripture  we  are  directed  to  seek  for  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  receive  the  Atonement, 
to  be  justified  through  the  faith  of  him  as  crucified,  the  object 
of  faith  in  justification  is  limited  and  determined. 

But  it  may  be  pleaded  in  exception  to  these  testimonies,  that 
.  no  one  of  them  affirms,  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  in  the 
blood  of  Christ  alone;  so  as  to  exclude  the  consideration  of  the 
other  offices  of  Christ  and  their  actings,  from  being  the  ob- 
ject of  faith  in  the  same  manner,  and  to  the  same  ends,  with 
his  sacerdotal  office,  and  what  belongs  thereto,  or  is  derived 
from  it. 

Ansiu.  This  exception  is  derived  from  that  common  objec- 
tion against  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone;  namely, 
that  that  exclusive  term  alone,  is  not  found  in  the  Scripture,  or 
in  any  of  the  testimonies  that  are  produced  for  justification  by 
faith.  But  it  is  replied  with  sufficient  evidence  of  truth,  that 
although  the  word  be  not  found  syllabically  used  to  this  pur- 
pose; yet  there  are  exceptive  expressions  equivalent  to  it,  as 
we  shall  see  afterwards.  It  is  so  in  this  particular  instance  also. 
For  (1)  whereas  our  justification  is  expressly  ascribed  to  our 
faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  to 
our  believing  in  him  as  crucified  for  us,  and  it  is  nowhere  as- 
cribed to  our  receiving  of  him  as  king,  lord,  or  prophet;  it  is 
plain,  that  the  former  expressions  are  virtually  exclusive  of 
the  latter  consideration.  (2)  I  do  not  say,  That  the  considera- 
tion of  the  kingly  and  prophetical  offices  of  Christ  is  excluded 
from  our  justification,  as  works  are  excluded  in  opposition  to 
faith  and  grace.  For  they  are  so  excluded,  as  that  we  are  to 
exercise  an  act  of  our  minds  in  their  positive  rejection,  as  say- 
ing. Get  you  hence,  you  have  no  lot  nor  portion  in  this  matter. 
But  as  to  these  offices  of  Christ,  as  to  the  object  of  faith  as  jus- 
tifying, we  say  only  that  they  are  not  included  therein.  For 
so  to  believe  to  be  justified  by  his  blood,  as  to  exercise  a  posi- 
tive act  of  the  mind,  excluding  a  compliance  with  his  other 
offices,  is  an  impious  imagination. 

3.  Neither  the  consideration  of  these  offices  themselves,  nor 


USE    OF    FAITH    IN  ^^^felCATION.  139 


of  any  of  the  peculiar  acts  of  thern,  is  suited  to  give  the  souls 
and  consciences  of  convinced  sinners,  that  relief  which  they 
seek  after  in  justification.  We  are  not  in  this  whole  cause  to  lose 
sight  of  the  state  of  the  person  who  is  to  be  justified,  and  what  it 
is  he  seeks  after  and  ought  to  seek  after,  therein.  Now  this  is  par- 
don of  sin,  and  righteousness  before  God  alone.  That  therefore, 
which  is  no  way  suited  to  give  or  tender  this  relief  to  him,  is 
not,  nor  can  be  the  object  of  his  faith,  whereby  he  is  justified  in 
that  exercise  of  it,  whereon  his  justification  depends.  This 
relief,  it  will  be  said,  is  to  be  had  in  Christ  alone.  It  is  true, 
but  under  what  consideration?  for  the  sole  design  of  the  sinner 
is  how  he  may  be  accepted  with  God,  be  at  peace  with  him, 
have  all  his  wrath  turned  away,  by  a  propitiation  or  atone- 
ment. Now  this  can  no  otherwise  be  done,  but  by  the  acting 
of  some  one,  towards  God,  and  with  God,  on  his  behalf;  for 
it  is  about  the  turnmg  away  of  God's  anger,  and  acceptance 
with  him,  that  the  inquiry  is  made.  It  is  by  the  blood  of 
Christ  that  we  are  made  nigh,  who  were  far  off;  Ephes.  ii.  13. 
By  the  blood  of  Christ  are  we  reconciled  who  were  enemies; 
V.  16.  By  the  blood  of  Christ  we  have  redemption.  Rom.  iii. 
24,  25.  Eph.  i.  7,  &c.     This  therefore,  is  the  object  of  faith. 

All  the  actings  of  the  kingly  and  prophetical  offices  of  Christ, 
are  from  God,  that  is,  in  the  name  and  authority  of  God  towards 
us.  Not  any  one  of  them  is  towards  God  on  onr  behalf,  so 
that  by  virtue  of  them,  we  should  expect  acceptance  with  God. 
They  are  all  good,  blessed,  holy,  in  themselves,  and  of  an  emi- 
nent tendency  to  the  glory  of  God  in  onr  salvation:  yea,  they 
are  no  less  necessary  to  our  salvation  to  the  praise  of  God's 
grace,  than  are  the  atonement  for  sin  and  satisfaction  which 
he  made;  for  from  them  is  the  way  of  life  revealed  to  us,  grace 
communicated,  our  persons  sanctified,  and  the  reward  bestow- 
ed. Yea,  in  the  exercise  of  his  kingly  power  does  the  Lord 
Christ  pardon  and  justify  sinners.  Not  that  he  did  as  a  king 
constitute  the  law  of  justification,  for  it  was  given  and  estab- 
lished in  the  first  promise,  and  he  came  to  put  it  in  execution; 
John  iii.  16.  But  in  the  virtue  of  his  atonement  and  righteous- 
ness imputed  to  them,  he  both  pardons  and  justifies  sinners. 
But  they  are  the  acts  of  his  sacerdotal  office  alone,  that  respect 
God  on  our  behalf.  Whatever  he  did  on  earth  with  God  for 
the  church,  in  obedience,  suffering,  and  offering  up  of  himself, 
whatever  he  does  in  heaven  in  intercession,  and  appearance 
in  the  presence  of  God  for  us,  it  all  entirely  belongs  to  his 
priestly  office.     And  in  these  things  alone  does  the  soul  of  a 


140  USE    OF    F^^^IN   JUSTIFICATION. 


convinced  sinner  find  relief,  when  he  seeks  after  deUverance 
from  the  state  of  sin  and  acceptance  with  God.  In  these  there- 
fore alone,  the  peculiar  object  of  his  faith,  that  which  will  give 
him  rest  and  peace,  must  be  comprised.  And  this  last  consider- 
ation is  of  itself  sufficient  to  determine  this  difference. 

Sundry  things  are  objected  against  this  assertion,  which  I 
shall  not  here  at  large  discuss,  because  what  is  material  in  any 
of  them,  will  occur  on  other  occasions,  where  its  consideration 
will  be  more  proper.  In  general  it  may  be  pleaded,  that  justi- 
fying faith  is  the  same  with  saving  faith;  nor  is  it  said,  that  we 
are  justified  by  this  or  that  part  of  faith,  but  by  faith  in  gene- 
ral, that  is,  as  taken  essentially  for  the  entire  grace  of  faith. 
And  as  to  faith  in  this  sense,  not  only  a  respect  to  Christ  in  all 
his  offices,  but  obedience  itself  also  is  included  in  it,  as  is  evi- 
dent in  many  places  of  the  Scripture.  Wherefore  there  is  no 
reason  why  we  should  limit  the  object  of  it,  to  the  person  of 
Christ  as  acting  in  the  discharge  of  his  sacerdotal  office,  with 
the  effects  and  fruits  thereof. 

*,^nsw.  1.  Saving  faith,  and  justifying  faith  in  any  believer 
are  one  and  the  same,  and  the  adjuncts  of  saving  and  Jiistifi/- 
ing  are  but  external  denominations,  from  its  distinct  operations 
and  effects.  But  yet  saving  faith  acts  in  a  peculiar  manner, 
and  is  of  peculiar  use  in  justification,  such  as  it  is  not  of  under 
any  other  consideration  whatever.  Wherefore  (2)  although 
saving  faith  as  it  is  described  in  general,  always  includes  obe- 
dience, not  as  its  form  or  essence,  but  as  the  necessary  effect  is 
included  in  the  cause,  and  the  fruit  in  the  fruit-bearing  juice, 
and  is  often  mentioned  as  to  its  .being  and  exercise,  where  there 
is  no  express  mention  of  Christ,  his  blood,  and  his  righteous- 
ness, but  is  applied  to  all  the  acts,  duties,  and  ends  of  the  gos- 
pel; yet  this  proves  not  at  all,  but  that  as  to  its  duty,  place,  and 
acting  in  our  justification,  it  has  a  peculiar  object.  If  it  could 
be  proved,  that,  where  justification  is  ascribed  to  faith,  there  it 
has  any  other  object  assigned  to  it,  as  that  vi^hich  it  rested  in 
for  the  pardon  of  sin  and  acceptance  with  God,  this  objection 
were  of  some  force.  But  this  cannot  be  done.  (3)  This  is  not 
to  say,  that  we  are  justified  by  a  part  of  faith,  and  not  by  it  as 
considered  essentially ;  for  we  are  justified  by  the  entire  grace 
of  faith,  acting  in  such  a  peculiar  way  and  manner  ;  as  others 
have  observed.  But  the  truth  is,  we  need  not  insist  on  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  inquiry.  For  the  true  meaning  of  it  is,  not 
whether  any  thing  of  Christ  is  to  be  excluded  from  being  the 
object  of  justifying  faith,  or  of  faith  in  our  justification,  but 


OF    JUSTIFICATION.  141 

what,  in  and  of  ourselves,  under  the  name  of  receiving  Christ, 
as  our  Lord  and  King,  is  to  be  admitted  to  an  efficiency  or  con- 
ditionality  in  that  work.  As  it  is  granted,  that  justifying  faith 
is  the  receiving  of  Christ,  so  whatever  belongs  to  the  person  of 
Christ,  or  any  office  of  his,  or  any  acts  in  the  discharge  of  any 
office,  that  may  be  reduced  to  any  cause  of  our  justification, 
the  meritorious,  procuring,  material,  formal,  or  manifesting 
cause  of  it,  is  so  far  as  it  does  so,  freely  admitted  to  belong  to 
the  object  of  justifying  faith.  Neither  will  I  contend  with  any 
upon  this  disadvantageous  stating  of  the  question,  what  of 
Christ  is  to  be  esteemed  the  object  of  justifying  faith,  and  what 
is  not  so  ?  For  the  thing  intended  is  only  this  ;  whether  our  own 
obedience,  distinct  from  faith,  or  included  in  it,  and  in  like 
manner  as  faith,  be  the  condition  of  our  justification  before 
God.  This  being  that  which  is  intended,  which  the  other 
question  is  but  invented  to  lead  to  a  compliance  with,  by  a 
more  specious  pretence  than  in  itself  it  is  capable  of  under 
those  terms,  it  shall  be  examined  and  no  otherwise. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

OF    JUSTIFICATION,    THE    NOTION,    AND    SIGNIFICATION    OF    THE    WORD  IN 
THE    SCRIPTURE. 

In  order  to  the  right  miderstanding  of  the  nature  of  justification, 
the  proper  sense  and  signification  of  these  words  themselves, 
justification  and  io  justify,  is  to  be  inquired  into.  For  until  that 
is  agreed  upon,  it  is  impossible  that  our  discourses  concerning 
the  thing  itself  should  be  freed  from  equivocation.  Take  words 
in  various  senses,  and  all  may  be  true  that  is  contradictorily 
affirmed  or  denied  concerning  what  they  are  supposed  to  sig- 
nify. And  so  it  has  actually  fallen  out  in  this  case,  as  we  shall 
see  more  fully  afterwards.  Some  taking  these  words  in  one 
sense,  some  in  another,  have  appeared  to  deliver  contrary  doc- 
trines concerning  the  thing  itself,  or  our  justification  before 
God;  who  yet  have  fully  agreed  in  what  the  proper  determi- 
nate sense  or  signification  of  the  words  imports.  And  there- 
fore the  true  meaning  of  them  has  been  declared  and  vindicated 
already  by  many.     But  whereas  the  right  stating  hereof,  is  of 


142  OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

more  moment  to  the  determination  of  what  is  principally  con- 
troverted about  the  doctrine  itself,  or  the  thing  signified,  than 
most  apprehend;  and  something  at  least  remains  to  be  added 
for  the  declaration  and  vindication  of  the  import  and  only  sig- 
nification of  these  words  in  the  Scripture,  I  shall  give  an  ac- 
count of  my  observations  concerning  it,  with  what  diligence 
I  can. 

The  Latin  derivation  and  composition  of  the  word  Justi^ca- 
tio  would  seem  to  denote  an  internal  change  from  inherent  un- 
righteousness, to  righteousness  likewise  inherent ;  by  a  physi- 
cal motion,  and  transmutation,  as  the  schoolmen  speak.  For 
such  IS  the  signification  of  words  of  the  same  composition.  So 
sanctification,  mortification,  vivification,  and  the  like,  all  de- 
note a  real  internal  work  on  the  subject  spoken  of.  Hereon 
in  the  whole  Roman  school,  justification  is  taken  for  the  making 
of  a  man  to  be  inherently  righteous  by  the  infusion  of  a  princi- 
ple or  habit  of  grace,  who  was  before  inherently  and  habitually 
imjust  and  unrighteous.  Whilst  this  is  taken  to  be  the  proper 
signification  of  the  word  ;  we  neither  do  nor  can  speak  ad  idem 
in  our  disputations  with  them  about  the  cause  and  nature  of 
that  justification,  which  the  Scripture  teaches. 

And  this  appearing  sense  of  the  word  possibly  deceived  some 
of  the  ancients,  as  Austin  in  particular,  to  declare  the  doctrine 
of  free  gratuitous  sanctification,  without  respect  to  any  works 
of  our  own,  under  the  name  of  justification.  For  neither  he 
nor  any  of  them,  ever  thought  of  a  justification  before  God, 
consistma:  in  the  pardon  of  our  sins  and  the  acceptation  of  our 
persons  as  righteous,  by  virtue  of  any  inherent  habit  of  grace 
infused  into  us,  or  acted  by  us.  Wherefore  the  subject  matter 
must  be  determined  by  the  Scriptural  use  and  signification  of 
these  words,  before  we  can  speak  properly  or  intelligibly  con- 
cerning it.  For  if  io  justify  men  in  the  Scripture,  signify  to 
make  them  subjectively  and  inherently  righteous,  we  must  ac- 
knowledge a  mistake  in  what  we  teach  concerning  the  nature 
and  causes  of  justification.  And  if  it  signify  no  such  thing,  all 
their  disputations  about  justification  by  the  infusion  of  grace 
and  inherent  righteousness  thereon  fall  to  the  ground.  Where- 
fore all  Protestants  (and  the  Socinians  all  of  them  comply 
therein)  affirm  that  the  use  and  signification  of  these  words  is 
forensic,  denoting  an  act  of  jurisdiction.  Only  the  Socinians, 
and  some  others,  would  have  it  to  consist  in  the  pardon  of  sin 
only,  which  indeed  the  word  does  not  at  all  signify.  But  the 
sense  of  the  word  is  to  acquit,  to  declare  and  pronounce  right- 


OF    JUSTIFICATION. 


143 


eous  upon  a  trial,  which  in  this  case,  the  pardon  of  sin  necessa- 
rily accompanies. 

Justijicatio  and  justifico  belong  not  indeed  to  the  Latin 
tongue;  nor  can  any  good  author  be  produced  who  ever  used 
them,  for  the  making  of  him  inherently  righteous  by  any 
means  who  was  not  so  before.  But  whereas  these  words  were 
coined  and  framed  to  signify  such  things  as  are  intended,  we 
have  no  way  to  determine  the  signification  of  them,  but  by 
the  consideration  of  the  nature  of  the  things  which  they 
were  invented  to  declare  and  signify.  And  whereas  in  this 
language  these  words  are  derived  from  jus  and  Justus,  they 
must  respect  an  act  of  jurisdiction,  rather  than  a  physical 
operation  or  infusion.  Justijicari  is  Justus  censeri,  pro  Jiisto 
haberi;  to  be  esteemed,  accounted  or  adjudged  righteous.  So 
a  man  was  made  Justus  Jilius  in  adoption  to  him,  by  whom 
he  was  adopted:  what  this  is,  is  well  declared  by  Budseus.* 
"  Speaking  of  the  form  of  adoption — He  who  adopts  is  asked 
whether  he  wishes  him  whom  he  designs  to  adopt,  to  be  to  him 
a.Jusi  son.  By j'tist,  I  understand  not  true,  as  some  think,  but 
one  who  has  all  the  attributes  of  filiation,  who  sustains  the 
relation  of  a  true  son,  who  sits  in  the  place  of  a  lawfully-begot- 
ten child."  Wherefore,  as  by  adoption,  there  is  no  internal 
inherent  change  made  in  the  person  adopted;  but  by  virtue 
thereof  he  is  esteemed  and  adjudged  as  a  true  son,  and  has  all 
the  rights  of  a  legitimate  son;  so  by  justification,  as  to  the  im- 
port of  the  word,  a  man  is  only  esteemed,  declared  and  pro- 
nounced righteous,  as  if  he  were  completely  so.  And  in  the 
present  case,  justification  and  gratuitous  adoption  are  the  same 
grace  for  the  substance  of  them,  John  i.  12;  only  respect  is  had 
in  their  different  denomination  of  the  same  grace,  to  different 
effects  or  privileges  that  ensue  thereon. 

But  the  true  and  genuine  signification  of  these  words  is  to 
be  determined  from  those  in  the  original  languages  of  the 
Scripture  which  are  expounded  by  them.  In  the  Hebrew  it 
is  pis.     This  the  Lxx.  render  by  fitxatov  djto^a/vw.  Job  xxvii.  5. 

Sixaio^  ajtofaivofiai,    Job  XUl.   18.    8t,xaiov  xpivco,    PrOV.    XVli.   15,  tO 

show  or  declare  one  righteous;  to  appear  righteous;  to  judge 
any  one  righteous.  And  the  sense  may  be  taken  from  any 
one  of  them,  as  Job  xiii.  IS.  "  Behold  now  I  have  ordered  my 

*  Cajus  lib.  2.  F.  de  Adopt.  De  arrogationc  loquens ;  is  qui  adoptat  rogatur, 

id  est,  interrogatur,  an  velit  eum  quern  adoptaturus  sit,  justum  sibi  fillum  esse. 
Jusium  intelligo  non  verum,  ut  aliqui  consent,  sed  omnibus  partibus  ut  ita  dicam 
liiiationis,  veri  filii  vieem  obtinentem,  naturalis  et  legitimi  filii  loco  sedentem. 


144  OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

cause,  I  know  that  I  shall  be  justified."  The  ordering  of  his 
cause,  (his  judgment)  his  cause  to  be  judged  on,  is  his  prepara- 
tion for  a  sentence,  either  of  absolution  or  condemnation;  and 
hereon  his  confidence  was  that  he  should  be  justified,  that 
is,  absolved,  acquitted,  pronounced  righteous.  And  the  sense 
is  no  less  pregnant  in  the  other  places;  commonly  they  render 
it  by  5ta;ato«,  whcreof  I  shall  speak  afterwards. 

Properly  it  denotes  an  action  towards  another,  (as  justifica- 
tion, and  to  justify  do)  in  Hiphil  only:  and  a  reciprocal  action 
of  a  man  on  himself  in  Hithpael  p^Tin.  Hereby  alone  is  the 
true  sense  of  these  words  determined.  And  I  say  that  in  no 
place,  nor  on  any  occasion,  is  it  used  in  that  conjugation 
wherein  it  denotes  an  action  towards  another,  in  any  other 
sense,  but  to  absolve,  acquit,  esteem,  declare,  pronounce  right- 
eous, or  to  impute  righteousness,  which  is  the  forensic  sense  of 
the  word  we  plead  for:  that  is  its  constant  use  and  significa- 
tion, nor  does  it  ever  once  signify  to  make  inherently  right- 
eous; much  less  to  pardon  or  forgive.  So  vain  is  the  pretence 
of  some  that  justification  consists  only  in  the  pardon  of  sin, 
which  is  not  signified  by  the  word  in  any  one  place  of  Scrips 
ture.  Almost  in  all  places  this  sense  is  absolutely  unquestion- 
able; nor  is  there  any  more  than  one  which  will  admit  of  any 
debate,  and  that  on  so  faint  a  pretence  as  cannot  prejudice  its 
constant  use  and  signification  in  all  other  places.  Whatever 
therefore  an  infusion  of  inherent  grace  may  be,  or  however  it 
may  be  called,  justification  it  is  not,  it  cannot  be;  the  word 
no  where  signifying  any  such  thing.  Wlierefore  those  of  the 
church  of  Rome  do  not  so  much  oppose  justification  by  faith 
through  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as  in- 
deed deny  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  justification.  For 
that  which  they  call  the  first  justification,  consisting  in  the  in- 
fusion of  a  principle  of  inherent  grace,  is  no  such  thing  as  jus- 
tification. And  their  second  justification  which  they  place  in 
the  merit  of  works,  wherein  absolution  or  pardon  of  sin,  has 
neither  place  nor  consideration,  is  inconsistent  with  evangelical 
justification,  as  we  shall  show  afterwards. 

This  word,  therefore,  whether  the  act  of  God  towards  men, 
or  of  men  towards  God,  or  of  men  among  themselves,  or  of 
one  towards  another,  be  expressed  thereby,  is  always  used  in 
a.  forensic  sense,  and  does  not  denote  a  physical  operation, 
transfusion  or  transmutation,  2  Sam.  xv.  4.  "  If  any  man  hath 
a  suit  or  cause  let  him  come  to  me,  mmsm  and  I  will  do  him 
justice;"  I  will  justify  him,  judge  in  his  cause  and  pronounce 


OP  JUSTIFICATION. 


145 


for*  him.  Deut.  xxv.  1,  "If  there  be  a  controversy  among 
men,  and  they  come  to  judgment,  that  the  judges  may  judge 
them,  they  shall  justify  the  righteous,"  pronounce  sentence  on 
his  side,  whereunto  is  opposed  "  and  they  shall  condemn  the 
wicked;"  make  him  wicked,  as  the  word  signifies;  that  is, 
judge,  declare  and  pronounce  him  wicked,  whereby  he  be- 
comes so  judicially,  and  in  the  eye  of  the  law;  as  the  other 
is  made  righteous,  by  declaration  and  acquittal.  He  does  not 
say  this  shall  pardon  the  righteous,  to  suppose  which  would 
overthrow  both  the  antithesis  and  design  of  the  place.  And 
jj^tf-in  is  as  much  to  infuse  wickedness  into  a  man,  as  p^xn  is  to  in- 
fuse a  principle  of  grace  or  righteousness  into  him.  The  same 
antithesis  occurs,  Prov.  xvii.  15.  pnsj?>a'-iaivcipnxn,  "He  thatjus- 
tifieth  the  wicked  and  condemneth  the  righteous;"  not  he 
that  maketh  the  wicked  inherently  righteous,  nor  he  that 
changeth  him  inherently  from  unrighteous  to  righteousness: 
but  he  that  without  any  ground,  reason  or  foundation  acquits 
him  in  judgment,  or  declares  him  to  be  righteous,  is  an  abomi- 
nation to  the  Lord.  And  although  this  be  spoken  of  the  judg- 
ment of  men,  yet  the  judgment  of  God  also  is  according  to 
this  truth.  For  although  he  justifies  the  ungodly,  those  who 
are  so  in  themselves,  yet  he  does  it  on  the  ground  and  consi- 
deration of  a  perfect  righteousness  made  theirs  by  imputation; 
and  by  another  act  of  his  grace,  that  they  may  be  meet  sub- 
jects of  this  righteous  favour,  really  and  inherently  changes 
them  from  unrighteousness  to  holiness,  by  the  renovation  of 
their  natures:  and  these  things  are  singular  in  the  actings  of 
God,  which  nothing  amongst  men  has  any  resemblance  to  or 
can  represent.  For  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  to  a  person  in  himself  ungodly  for  his  justification,  or 
that  he  may  be  acquitted,  absolved,  and  declared  righteous,  is 
built  on  such  foundations,  and  proceeds  on  such  principles  of 
righteousness,  wisdom  and  sovereignty,  as  have  no  place 
among  the  actions  of  men,  nor  can  have,  as  shall  afterwards 
be  declared.  And  moreover,  when  God  justifies  the  ungodly 
on  account  of  the  righteousness  imputed  to  him,  he  does  at 
the  same  instant,  by  the  power  of  his  grace,  make  him  inhe- 
rently and  subjectively  righteous  or  holy,  which  men  cannot 
do  one  towards  another.  And  therefore  whereas  man's  justi- 
fying the  wicked,  is  to  justify  them  in  their  wicked  ways, 
whereby  they  are  constantly  made  worse  and  more  obdurate 
in  evil;  when  God  justifies  the  ungodly,  their  change  from 

13 


146  OP    JUSTIFICATION. 

personal  unrighteousness  and  unholiness,  to  righteousness  and 
holiness,  necessarily  and  infallibly  accompanies  it. 

To  the  same  purpose  is  the  word  used;  Isa.  v.  23.  "which 
justify  the  wicked  for  reward."  1.  8.  vnso  anp.  "  He  is  near 
that  justifieth  me;  who  shall  contend  with  me?  let  us  stand 
together;  who  is  my  adversary?  let  him  come  near  to  me;  be- 
hold the  Lord  God  will  help  me;  who  shall  condemn  me?" 
where  we  have  a  full  declaration  of  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word,  which  is  to  acquit  and  pronounce  righteous  on  a  trial. 
And  the  same  sense  is  fully  expressed  in  the  former  antithesis. 
1  Kings  viii.  31,  32.  "If  any  man  trespass  against  his  neigh- 
bour, and  an  oath  be  laid  upon  him  to  cause  him  to  swear,  and 
the  oath  come  before  thine  altar  in  this  house;  then  hear  thou  in 
Heaven  and  do,  and  judge  thy  servants  to  condemn  the  wick- 
ed," to  charge  his  wickedness  on  him,  to  bring  his  way  on  his 
head,  "and  to  justify  the  righteous."  The  same  words  are 
repeated  2  Chron.  vi.  22,  23.  Psal.  Ixxxii.  3.  "  Do  justice  to 
the  afflicted  and  poor  ;"  that  is,  justify  them  in  their  cause 
against  wrong  and  oppression.  Exod.  xxiii.  7.  "  I  will  not 
justify  the  wicked  ;"  absolve,  acquit,  or  pronounce  him  right- 
eous. Job  xxvii.  5,  "  Be  it  far  from  me  that  I  should  justify 
you,"  or  pronounce  sentence  on  your  side,  as  if  you  were 
righteous.  Isa.  liii.  11.  "By  his  knowledge  my  righteous  ser- 
vant shall  justify  many;"  the  reason  whereof  is  added:  "for 
he  shall  bear  their  iniquities,"  whereon  they  are  absolved  and 
justified. 

Once  it  is  used  in  Hithpael,  wherein  a  reciprocal  action  is 
denoted,  that  whereby  a  man  justifies  himself.  Gen.  xliv.  16. 
"And  Judali  said,  what  shall  we  say  unto  my  Lord?  what 
shall  we  speak,  and  how  shall  we  justify  ourselves?  God  hath 
found  out  our  iniquity."  They  could  plead  nothing  why  they 
should  be  absolved  from  guilt. 

Once  the  participle  is  used  to  denote  the  outward  instrumen- 
tal cause  of  the  justification  of  others,  m  which  place  alone 
there  is  any  doubt  of  its  sense;  Dan.  xii.  3;  "and  they  that 
justify  many ;"  namely,  in  the  same  sense  that  the  preachers 
of  the  gospel  are  said  to  "  save  themselves  and  others."  1  Tim. 
iv.  16.  For  men  may  be  no  less  the  instrumental  causes  of 
the  justification  of  others,  than  of  their  sanctification. 

Wherefore,  although  Pli"  in  Kal,  signifies  71^5/?^^  e^^e,  and 
sometimes  Juste  agere,  which  may  relate  to  inherent  righteous- 
ness; yet  where  any  action  towards  another  is  denoted,  this 
word  signifies  nothing,  but  to  esteem,  declare,  pronounce,  and 


OF   JUSTIFICATION.  147 

adjudge  any  one  absolved,  acquitted,  cleared,  justified:  there  is 
therefore  no  other  kind  of  justification  once  mentioned  in  the 
Old  Testament, 

Aixatow  is  the  word  used  to  the  same  purpose  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  that  alone.  Neither  is  this  word  used  in  any- 
good  author  whatever,  to  signify  the  making  of  a  man  righteous 
by  any  applications  to  produce  internal  righteousness  in  him; 
but  either  to  absolve  and  acquit,  to  judge,  esteem,  and  pro- 
nounce righteous,  or  on  the  contrary  to  condemn.     So  Suidas, 

Aixavovv  8vo  SrjXoi)  t'o  t'e  xo^a^sn',  xae.  to  Stxacov  j/Ojitt^sii'.      "  Atxatow 

has  two  significations,  to  punish,  and  to  account  righteous." 
And  he  confirms  this  sense  of  the  word  by  instances  out  of 
Herodotus,  Appianus  and  Josephus.  And  again,  8i,xaiu,aao  atfta- 

•tixr^,   xataSt,xaaai,y   xoTiauat,    Stxatov    vof^vaat,'^   "  with    aU    aCCUSative 

case,"  that  is,  when  it  respects  and  affects  a  subject,  a  person, 
"  it  is  either  to  condemn  and  punish,  or  to  esteem  and  declare 
righteous;"  and  of  this  latter  sense,  he  gives  pregnant  instances 
in  the  next  words.  Hesychius  mentions  only  the  first  signifi- 
cation.     Aixaiov[^£vov,  xoXa^ofisvov,  Stxatwtfat,    xo%aaai.    They  never 

thought  of  any  sense  of  this  word,  but  what  is  forensic.  And 
in  our  language,  to  be  justified,  was  commonly  used  formerly, 
for  to  be  judged  and  sentenced;  as  it  is  still  among  the  Scots. 
One  of  the  articles  of  peace  between  the  two  nations  at  the 
surrender  of  Leith,  in  the  days  of  Edward  the  Sixth,  was; 
"  that  if  any  one  committed  a  crime,  he  should  he  justified  by 
the  law,  upon  his  trial."  And  in  general  Stxatous^at,  is  jus  in 
judicio  auferre;  and  Stxatuaot,  is  justum  cejisere,  declarare, 
pronuntiare ;  and  how  in  the  Scripture  it  is  constantly  oppos- 
ed to  condemnare,  we  shall  see  immediately. 

But  we  may  more  distinctly  consider  the  use  of  this  word 
in  the  New  Testament,  as  we  have  done  that  of  p-^^i^  in 
the  Old.  And  that  which  we  inquire  concerning  is,  whether 
this  word  be  used  in  the  New  Testament,  in  a  forensic  sense 
to  denote  an  act  of  jurisdiction,  or  in  a  physical  sense  to  ex- 
press an  internal  change  or  mutation,  the  infusion  of  a  habit 
of  righteousness,  and  the  denomination  of  the  person  to  be 
justified  thereon;  or  whether  it  signifies  not  pardon  of  sin. 
But  this  we  may  lay  aside;  for  surely  no  man  was  ever  yet 
so  fond  as  to  pretend  that  Stxaiow  signified  to  pardon  sin;  yet 
is  it  the  only  word  applied  to  express  our  justification  in  the 
New  Testament.  For  if  it  be  taken  only  in  the  former  sense, 
then  that  which  is  pleaded  for  by  those  of  the  Roman  church, 
under  the  name  of  justification,  whatever  it  be,  however  good, 


148  OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

useful  and  necessary,  yet  justification  it  is  not,  nor  can  be  so 
called;  seeing  it  is  a  thing  quite  of  another  nature  than  what 
alone  is  signified  by  that  word.  Matt.  xi.  19.  iSixaMOr^  r,  ao^ta; 
"wisdom  is  justified  of  her  children,"  not  made  just,  but  ap- 
proved and  declared.  Chap.  xii.  37.  ix  rcor  ^oyuiv  cs  bixa.n^eriori\ 
"  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justified;"  not  made  just  by  them, 
but  judged  according  to  them,  as  is  manifest  in  the  antithesis, 
xa.1  ix  tcov  xoycuv  08  xataScxas^t^arj;  "  and  by  thy  words  thou  shalt 
be  condemned."  Luke  vii.  29.  tSixaioJoav  tov  Qiov;  "  they  jus- 
tified God;"  not  surely  by  making  him  righteous  in  himself, 
but  by  owning,  avowing  and  declaring  his  righteousness;  chap. 
X.  29.  o  Bt  Oi-ki^v  ht.xaiovv  iavtov;  "he  willing  to  justify  himself," 
to  declare  and  maintain  his  own  righteousness.     To  the  same 

purpose;  chap.  Xvi.  15.  v^d^  iatB  ii  bixa^owfii  tavtov^,  ji'wrttoi'  rtof 

av9pu7icjv',  "ye  are  they  that  justify  yourselves  before  men;" 
they  did  not  make  themselves  internally  righteous,  but  ap- 
proved of  their  own  condition;  as  our  Saviour  declares  in  the 
place.  Luke  xviii.  14;  the  publican  went  down  debixaitJi^ivoi, 
"justified"  to  his  house;  that  is,  acquitted,  absolved,  par- 
doned, upon  the  confession  of  his  sin,  and  supplication  for 
remission.  Acts  xiii.  3S,  39.  with  Rom.  ii.  13.  ot  noirjtai,  tov 
vofin  Bi.Kai,ui9y!aovtai.  "  The  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified." 
The  place  declares  directly  the  nature  of  our  justification  be- 
fore God,  and  puts  the  signification  of  the  word  out  of  ques- 
tion. For  justification  ensues,  as  the  whole  etTect  of  inherent 
righteousness  according  to  the  law:  and  therefore  it  is  not 
the  making  of  us  righteous;  which  is  irrefragable.  It  is  spoken 

of  God;    Rom.   iii.    4.    onu>5    av    BoxanoOr^i   iv  rotj  Xoyotj  en;    "  That 

thou  mayest  be  justified  in  thy  sayings;"  where  to  ascribe 
any  other  sense  to  the  word  is  blasphemy.  In  like  manner 
the  same  word  is  used,  and  in  the  same  signification;  1  Cor. 
iv.  4.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Rom.  iii.  20,  26,  28,  30;  iv.  2,  5;  v.  1.  9; 
vi.  7;  viii.  30.  Gal.  ii.  16,  17;  iii.  11,24;  v.  4.  Tit.  iii.  7.  Jam. 
ii.  22,  24,  25.  And  in  no  one  of  these  instances  can  it  admit 
of  any  other  signification,  or  denote  the  making  of  any  man 
righteous  by  the  infusion  of  a  habit,  or  principle  of  righteous- 
ness, or  any  internal  mutation  whatever. 

It  is  not  therefore  in  many  places  of  Scripture,  as  Bellarmine 
grants,  that  the  words  we  have  insisted  on,  signify  the  declara- 
tion or  juridical  pronunciation  of  any  one  to  be  righteous,  but 
in  all  places  where  they  are  used,  they  are  capable  of  no  other 
but  a  forensic  sense;  especially  is  this  evident  where  mention 
is  made  of  justification    before   God.     And   because  in  my 


or  JUSTIFICATION.  149 

judgment  this  one  consideration  sufficiently  defeats  all  the  pre- 
tences of  those  of  the  Roman  church  about  the  nature  of  jus- 
tification, I  shall  consider  what  is  excepted  against  the  obser- 
vation insisted  on,  and  remove  it  out  of  our  way. 

Lud.  de  Blanc,  in  his  conciliatory  endeavours  on  this  article 
of  justification  ( Thes.  de  usu  et  acceptatione  vocis,JustiJicandi,) 
grants  to  the  Papists,  that  the  word  Stxatow  in  sundry  places  of 
the  New  Testament,  signifies  to  renew,  to  sanctify,  to  infuse  a 
habit  of  holiness  or  righteousness,  according  as  they  plead. 
And  there  is  no  reason  to  think  but  he  has  grounded  that  con- 
cession on  those  instances,  which  are  most  pertinent  to  that 
purpose.  Neither  is  it  to  be  expected  that  a  better  countenance 
will  be  given  by  any  to  this  concession,  than  is  given  it  by  him. 
I  shall  therefore  examine  all  the  instances  which  he  insists 
upon  to  this  purpose,  and  leave  the  determination  of  the  dif- 
ference to  the  judgment  of  the  reader.  Only  I  shall  premise 
that  which  I  judge  not  an  unreasonable  demand;  namely, 
That  if  the  signification  of  the  word  in  any,  or  all  the  places 
which  he  mentions,  should  seem  doubtful  to  any,  (as  it  does 
not  to  me,)  the  uncertainty  of  a  very  few  places  should  not 
make  us  question  the  proper  signification  of  a  word,  whose 
sense  is  determined  in  so  many,  wherein  it  is  clear  and  un- 
questionable. The  first  place  he  mentions,  is  that  of  the  Apos- 
tle Paul  himself,  Rom.  viii.  30.  "  Moreover  whom  he  did  pre- 
destinate, them  he  also  called;  and  whom  he  called,  them  he 
also  justified,  and  wiiom  he  justified  them  he  also  glorified." 
The  reason  whereby  he  pleads  that  hy  justijied  in  this  place, 
an  internal  work  of  inherent  holiness  in  lliem  that  are  predes- 
tinated is  designed,  is  this  and  no  other.  "It  is  not  likely  that 
the  holy  Apostle  in  this  enumeration  of  gracious  privileges, 
would  omit  the  mention  of  our  sanctification  by  which  we  are 
freed  from  the  service  of  sin,  and  adorned  with  true  internal 
holiness  and  righteousness:  but  this  is  utterly  omitted,  if  it  be 
not  comprised  under  the  name  and  title  of  being  justified;  for 
it  is  absurd  with  some,  to  refer  it  to  the  head  of  glorification. '^ 

Answ.  (1)  The  grace  of  sanctification,  whereby  our  natures 
are  spiritually  washed,  purified  and  endowed  with  a  principle 
of  life,  holiness  and  obedience  to  God,  is  a  privilege  unques- 
tionably great  and  excellent,  and  without  which  none  can  be 
saved.  Of  the  same  nature  also  is  our  redemption  by  the 
blood  of  Christ.  And  both  these  does  this  Apostle  in  other 
places  without  number,  declare,  commend,  and  insist  upon. 
But  that  he  ought  to  have  introduced  the  mention  of  them,  or 

13* 


150  OP   JUSTIFICATION. 

either  of  them  in  this  place,  seeing  he  has  not  done  so,  I  dare 
not  judge. 

2.  If  our  sanctification  be  included  or  intended  in  any  of  the 
privileges  here  expressed,  there  is  none  of  them,  predestination 
only  excepted,  but  it  is  more  probably  to  be  reduced  to,  than 
to  that  of  being  justified.  Indeed  in  vocation  it  seems  to  be 
included  expressly.  For  whereas  it  is  effectual  vocation  that 
is  intended  wherein  a  holy  principle  of  spiritual  life,  or  faith 
itself  is  communicated  to  us,  our  sanctification  radically,  and 
as  the  effect  in  its  adequate  immediate  cause,  is  contained  in  it. 
Hence  we  are  said  to  be  "  called  to  be  saints;"  Rom.  i.  7,  which 
is  the  same  with  being  "sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus."  1  Cor.  i.  2. 
And  in  many  other  places  is  sanctification  included  in  vocation. 

3.  Whereas  our  sanctification,  in  the  infusion  of  a  principle 
of  spiritual  life,  and  the  actings  of  it  to  an  increase  in  duties  of 
holiness,  righteousness  and  obedience,  is  that  whereby  we  are 
made  meet  for  glory,  and  is  of  tlie  same  nature  essentially  with 
glory  itself,  whence  its  advances  in  us  are  said  to  be  "  from 
glory  to  glory;"  2  Cor.  iii.  18,  and  glory  itself  is  called  the 
"  grace  of  life;"  1  Pet.  iii.  7,  it  is  much  more  properly  express- 
ed by  our  being  glorified  than  by  being  justified,  which  is  a 
privilege  quite  of  another  nature.  However  it  is  evident,  that 
there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  depart  from  the  general  use 
and  signification  of  the  word,  no  circumstance  in  the  text  com- 
pelling us  so  to  do. 

The  next  place  that  he  gives  up  to  this  signification  is,  1 
Cor.  vi.  11,  "  Such  were  some  of  you,  but  ye  are  washed,  but 
ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  our  Lord 
Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  That  by  justification 
here,  the  infusion  of  an  inherent  principle  of  grace  making  us  in- 
herently righteous,  is  intended,  he  endeavours  to  prove  by  three 
reasons:  (1)  "  Because  justification  is  here  ascribed  to  the  Holy 
Ghost,  'ye  are  justified  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.'  But  to 
renew  us  is  the  proper  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  (2)  It  is  mani- 
fest that  by  justification,  the  Aposlle  signifies  some  change  in 
the  Corinthians,  whereby  they  ceased  to  be  what  they  were 
before.  For  they  were  fornicators  and  drunkards,  such  as 
could  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  now  were  changed, 
which  proves  a  real  inherent  work  of  grace,  to  be  intended. 
(3)  If  justification  here  signify  nothing,  but  to  be  absolved 
from  the  punishment  of  sin,  then  the  reasoning  of  the  Apostle 
will  be  infirm  and  frigid.  For  after  he  has  said  that  which  is 
greater,  as  heightening  of  it,  he  adds  the  less:  for  it  is  more  to 


OF    JUSTIFICATION. 


151 


be  washed,  than  merely  to  be  freed  from  the  punishment  of 
sin." 

Jlnsw.  1.  All  these  reasons  prove  not,  that  it  is  the  same  to 
be  sanctified  and  to  be  justified,  which  must  be,  if  that  be  the 
sense  of  the  latter,  which  is  here  pleaded  for.  But  the  Apostle 
makes  an  express  distinction  between  them,  and  as  this  author 
observes,  proceeds  from  one  to  another  by  an  ascent  from  the 
lesser  to  the  greater.  And  the  infusion  of  a  habit  or  principle 
of  grace,  or  righteousness  evangelical,  whereby  we  are  inhe- 
rently righteous,  by  which  he  explains  our  being  justified  in 
this  place,  is  our  sanctification  and  nothing  else.  Yea,  and 
sanctification  is  here  distinguished  from  washing;  "but  ye  are 
washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified;"  so  that  it  peculiarly  in  this 
place  denotes  positive  habits  of  grace  and  holiness.  Neither 
can  he  declare  the  nature  of  it,  any  way  diff'erent  from  what 
he  would  have  expressed  by  being  justified. 

2.  Justification  is  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  the  princi- 
pal efficient  cause  of  the  application  of  the  grace  of  God  and 
blood  of  Christ,  whereby  we  are  justified,  to  our  souls  and  con- 
sciences. And  he  is  so  also  of  the  operation  of  that  faith 
whereby  we  are  justified;  whence,  although  we  are  said  to  be 
justified  by  him,  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  our  justification 
consists  in  the  renovation  of  our  natures. 

3.  The  change  and  mutation  that  was  made  in  these  Corin- 
thians, so  far  as  it  was  physical  in  effects  inherent  (as  such 
there  was)  the  Apostle  expressly  ascribes  to  their  washing  and 
sanctification  ;  so  that  there  is  no  need  to  suppose  this  change 
to  be  expressed  by  their  being  justified.  And  in  the  real  change 
asserted,  that  is,  in  the  renovation  of  our  natures,  consists  the 
true  entire  work  and  nature  of  our  sanctification.  But  whereas 
by  reason  of  the  vicious  habits  and  practices  mentioned,  they 
were  in  a  state  of  condemnation,  and  such  as  had  no  right  to 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  they  were  by  their  justification  chang- 
ed and  transferred  out  of  that  state  into  another,  wherein  they 
had  peace  with  God,  and  right  to  life  eternal. 

4.  The  third  reason  proceeds  upon  a  mistake;  namely,  that 
to  be  justified,  is  only  to  be  freed  from  the  punishment  due  to 
sin.  For  it  comprises  both  the  non-imputation  of  sin,  and  the 
imputation  of  righteousness,  with  the  privilege  of  adoption, 
and  right  to  the  heavenly  inheritance,  which  are  inseparable 
from  it.  And  although  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Apostle  in 
the  enumeration  of  these  privileges,  intended  a  process  from 
the  less  to  the  greater;  nor  is  it  safe  for  us  to  compare  the  un- 


152 


OF    JUSTIFICATION. 


utterable  effects  of  the  grace  of  God  by  Christ  Jesus,  such  as 
sanctification  and  justification  are,  and  to  determine  which  is 
greatest,  and  which  is  least;  yet  following  the  conduct  of  the 
Scripture,  and  the  due  consideration  of  the  things  themselves, 
we  may  say  that  in  this  life  we  can  be  made  partakers  of  no 
greater  mercy  or  privilege,  than  what  consists  in  our  justifica- 
tion. And  the  reader  may  see  from  hence,  how  impossible  it 
is  to  produce  any  one  place  wherein  the  woxdiS,  justification 
and  to  justify,  signify  a  real  internal  work  and  physical  ope- 
ration ;  in  that  this  learned  man,  a  person  of  more  than  ordinary 
perspicacity,  candour  and  judgment,  designing  to  prove  it,  insist- 
ed on  such  instances,  as  give  so  little  countenance  to  what  he 
pretended.  He  adds,  Tit.  iii.  5-7.  "  Not  by  works  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he 
saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Saviour;  that  being  justified  by  his  grace,  we  should 
be  made  heirs  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life."  The 
argument  which  alone  he  insists  upon  to  prove,  that  by  justi- 
fication here,  an  infusion  of  internal  grace  is  intended,  is  this; 
that  the  Apostle  affirmed  first,  "'that  God  saved  us,  according 
to  his  mercy  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  afterwards  affirming  that  we  are  justified 
by  his  grace,  he  supposes  it  necessary,  that  we  should  be  re- 
generate and  renewed,  that  we  may  be  justified;  and  if  so, 
then  our  justification  contains  and  comprises  our  sanctification 
also." 

Jlnswer.  The  plain  truth  is,  the  Apostle  speaks  not  one  word 
of  the  necessity  of  our  sanctification,  or  regeneration,  or  re- 
novation by  the  Holy  Ghost,  antecedently  to  our  justification, 
a  supposition  whereof  contains  the  whole  force  of  this  argu- 
ment. Indeed  he  assigns  our  regeneration,  renovation,  and 
justification,  all  the  means  of  our  salvation,  equally  to  grace 
and  mercy,  in  opposition  to  any  works  of  our  own,  which  we 
shall  afterwards  make  use  of.  Nor  is  there  intimated  by  him, 
any  order  of  precedency,  or  connexion  between  the  things  that 
he  mentions,  but  only  between  justification  an^i  adoption,  jus- 
tification having  the  priority  in  order  of  nature;  "that  being 
justified  by  his  grace,  we  should  be  heirs  according  to  the  hope 
of  eternal  life."  All  the  things  he  mentions  are  inseparable. 
No  man  is  regenerate  or  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but 
withal  he  is  justified.  No  man  is  justified,  but  withal  he  is 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost.     And  they  are  all  of  them  equally 


OF   JUSTIFICATION.  153 

of  sovereign  grace  in  God,  in  opposition  to  any  works  of  right- 
eousness, that  we  have  wrought.  And  we  plead  for  the  free- 
dom of  God's  grace  in  sanctification,  no  less  than  in  justifica- 
tion. But  that  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  be  sanctified  that 
we  may  be  justified  before  God,  who  justifieth  the  ungodly, 
the  Apostle  says  not  in  this  place,  nor  any  thing  to  that  pur- 
pose ;  neither  yet  if  he  did  so,  would  it  at  all  prove  that  the 
signification  of  that  expression  to  be  justified,  is  to  be  sanctified, 
or  to  have  inherent  hohness  and  righteousness  wrought  in  us. 
And  these  testimonies  would  not  have  been  produced  to  prove 
it,  wherein  these  things  are  so  expressly  distinguished,  but  that 
there  are  none  to  be  found  of  more  force  or  evidence. 

The  last  place  wherein  he  grants  this  signification  of  the 
word  Stxatoco  is  Revel,  xxii.  11.  o  Stxacoj  SixaioOTjtu  iti,  qui 
Justus  est,  justijicetur  adhuc;  which  place  is  pleaded  by  all 
the  Romanists.  And  our  author  says,  there  are  but  few  among 
the  Protestants  who  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  word  cannot 
be  here  used  in  a  forensic  sense,  but  that  to  be  justified,  is  to 
go  on  and  increase  in  piety  and  righteousness. 

Answer.  But  (1)  There  is  a  great  objection  lies  in  the  way 
of  any  argument  from  these  words;  namely,  from  the  various 
reading  of  the  place.  For  many  ancient  copies  read  not  6  Stxatoj 
SixaioStita  sfi ;  whicli  the  Vulgate  renders  justijicetur  adhuc; 
but  hixavoavvTiv  rtoirjaatcj  itc ;  "  let  him  that  is  righteous,  work 
righteousness  still,"  as  does  the  printed  copy  which  now  lies 
before  me.  So  it  was  in  the  copy  of  the  Complutensian  editon 
which  Stephens  commends  above  all  others ;  and  in  one  more 
ancient  copy  that  he  used.  So  it  is  in  the  Syriac  and  Arabic 
published  by  Hutterus,  and  in  our  own  Polyglot.  So  Cyprian 
reads  the  words  de  bono  patientise  ;  Justus  autem  adhuc  jus- 
tiora  faciat ,  similiter  et  qui  sanctus  sanctiora.  And  I  doubt 
not  but  that  is  the  true  reading  of  the  place;  Stxatoei^rca  being 
supplied  by  some  to  correspond  with  ayiaa^ritu  that  ensues. 
And  this  phrase  of  bt,xa,t,oavriv  noi,Biv  is  peculiar  to  this  Apostle, 
being  no  where  used  in  the  New  Testament,  (nor  it  may  be  in 
any  other  author)  but  by  him.  And  he  uses  it  expressly;  1 
John  ii.  29;  and  iii.  7,  where  those^words,  6  noiav  Sixaioswt^v  Stxatoj 
iati,  plainly  contain  what  is  here  expressed.  (2)  To  be  jus- 
tified, as  the  word  is  rendered  by  the  Vulgate,  "let  him  be  jus- 
tified more"  (as  it  must  be  rendered,  if  the  word  SixotoSijTw  be 
retained)  respects  an  act  of  God,  which  neither  in  its  beginning 
nor  continuation  is  prescribed  to  us  as  a  duty,  nor  is  capable  of 
increase  in  degrees  as  we  shall  show  afterwards.     (3)  Men  are 


154  OF   JITSTIFICATION. 

said  to  be  Siseatot  generally  from  inherent  righteousness;  and  if 
the  Apostle  had  intended  justification  in  this  place,  he  would 
not  have  said  o  Sixato;  but  o  fitxatw^stj.  All  which  things  prefer 
the  Complutensian,  Syriac,  and  Arabic,  before  the  vulgar  read- 
ing of  this  place.  If  the  vulgar  reading  be  retained,  no  more 
can  be  intended,  but  that  he  who  is  righteous,  should  so 
proceed  in  working  righteousness,  as  to  secure  his  justified 
estate  to  himself,  and  to  manifest  it  before  God  and  the 
world. 

Now  whereas  the  words  Sixcuoa  and  Sixaiooj^at  are  used 
thirty-six  times  in  the  New  Testament,  these  are  all  the  places, 
whereto  any  exception  is  put  in  against  their  forensic  signifi- 
cation; and  how  ineffectual  these  exceptions  are,  is  evident  to 
any  impartial  judge. 

Some  other  considerations  may  yet  be  made  use  of  and 
pleaded  to  the  same  purpose.  Such  is  the  opposition  that  is 
made  between  justification  and  condemnation;  so  is  it,  Isa.  1. 
8,  9.  Prov.  xvii.  15.  Rom.  v.  16,  IS;  viii.  33,  34,  and  in 
sundry  other  places,  as  may  be  observed  in  the  preceding 
enumeration  of  them.  Wherefore  as  condemnation  is  not  the 
infusing  of  a  habit  of  wickedness  into  him  that  is  condemned, 
nor  the  making  of  him  to  be  inherently  wicked,  who  was  be- 
fore righteous ;  but  the  passing  a  sentence  upon  a  man  with 
respect  to  his  wickedness;  no  more  is  justification  the  change 
of  a  person  from  inherent  unrighteousness  to  righteousness,  by 
the  infusion  of  a  principle  of  grace,  but  a  sentential  declaration 
of  him  to  be  righteous. 

Moreover,  the  thing  intended  is  frequently  declared  in  the 
Scripture  by  other  equivalent  terms,  which  are  absolutely  ex- 
clusive of  any  such  sense,  as  the  infusion  of  a  habit  of  right- 
eousness ;  so  the  Apostle  expresses  it  by  the  "  imputation  of 
righteousness  without  works;"  Rom.  ,iv.  6,  11;  and  calls  it 
the  blessedtiess,  which  we  have  by  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  the 
covering  of  iniquity  in  the  same  place.  So  it  is  called  "recon- 
ciliation with  God;"  Rom.  v.  9,  10.  To  be  justified  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  is  the  same  with  being  "  reconciled  by  his 
death."  "  Being  now  justified  by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved 
from  wrath  by  him.  For  if  when  we  were  enemies  we  were 
reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more  being 
reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life."  See  2  Cor.  v.  20,  21. 
Reconciliation  is  not  the  infusion  of  a  habit  of  grace,  but  the 
effecting  of  peace  and  love,  by  the  removal  of  all  enmity  and 
causes  of  offence.     To  save,  and  salvation,  are  used  to  the 


OP  JUSTIFICATION. 


155 


same  purpose.  "  He  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins ;" 
Matth.  i.  21,  is  the  same  with,  "by  him  all  that  believe  are 
justified  from  all  things  from  which  they  could  not  be  justified 
by  the  law  of  Moses,"  Acts  xiii.  39.  That  of  Gal.  ii.  16,  "  We 
have  believed  that  we  might  be  justified  by  the  faith  of  Christ, 
and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law,"  is  the  same  with  Actsxv.  11, 
"  But  we  believe  that  through  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  we  shall  be  saved  even  as  they."  Ephes.  ii.  8,  9.  "By 
grace  ye  are  saved,  through  faith,  and  not  of  works ;"  is  so  to 
be  justified.  So  it  is  expressed  by  pardon,  or  the  remission  of 
sins,  which  is  the  effect  of  it;  Rom.  iv.  5,  6.  By  receiving  the 
atonement ;  Rom.  v.  11,  not  coming  into  judgment  or  condem- 
nation; John  V.  24.  "Blotting  out  sins  and  iniquities;"  Isa. 
xliii.  25;  xliv.  22.  Psal.  Ii.  9.  Jer.  xviii.  23.  Acts  iii.  19.  Cast- 
ing them  into  the  bottom  of  the  sea;  Micah  vii.  19,  and 
sundry  other  expressions  of  a  like  import.  The  Apostle  declar- 
ing it  by  its  effects,  says,  fitxatot,  xa-taatTjdrjeoi/tai,  ov  T(o%%ot-.  "  Many 
shall  be  made  righteous,"  Rom.  v.  19.  He  is  made  right- 
eous, Sixaioi  xaOistatai.,  who  OH  a  juridical  trial  in  open  court,  is 
absolved  and  declared  righteous.  ^^ 

And  so  it  may  be  observed  that  all  things  concerning  justifi-\  '0'-2^ 
cation  are  proposed  in  the  Scripture  under  a  juridical  scheme,  \'^ 
or  forensic  trial  and  sentence.     As  (1)  A  judgment  is  supposed    \ 
in  it,  concerning  which,  the    Psalmist  prays  that  it  may  not    ' 
proceed  on  the  terms  of  the  law,  Psal.  cxliii.  2.     (2)  The  Judge 
is  God  himself;  Isa.  1.  7,  8.    Rom.  viii.  33.    (3)  The  tribunajl 
whereon  God  sits  in  judgment,  is  the  throne  of  grace,  Heb.  iv.\ 
16.    "Therefore  will  the  Lord  wait,  that  he  may  be  graciousV 
unto  you,  and  therefore  will  he  be  exalted,  that  he  may  have  \ 
mercy  upon  you;  for  the  Lord  is  a  God  of  judgment,"  Isa. 
XXX.  18.     (4)    A  guilty  person.     This  is  the  sinner,  who  is 
irtoSixoj  -ia  0£t«,  SO  guilty  of  siu,  as  to  be  obnoxious  to  the  judg- 
ment  of  God;    T'cj    Sixaiufiaifi,   -tov   Qiov.    Rom.  iii.   19  ;  i.  32, 
whose    mouth   is   stopped   by  conviction.     (5)  Accusers  are 
ready  to  propose  and  promote  the  charge  against  the  guilty 
person;  these  arc  the  law,  John  v.  45;  and  conscience,  Rom. 
ii.    15;  and   Satan   also.  Zee.  iii.  2.   Rev.   xii.   10.     (6)  The 
charge  is  admitted  and  drawn  up  into  a  hand-writing  in  form 
of  law,  and  is  laid  before  the  tribunal  of  the  Judge,  in  bar,  to 
the  deliverance  of  the  offender.  Col.  ii.  14.    (7)  A  plea  is  pre- 
pared in  the  gospel  for  the  guilty  person.     And  this  is  grace, 
through  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  ransom  paid,  the  atonement 
made,  the  eternal  righteousness  brought  in  by  the  surety  of 


156  OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

the  covenant.  Rom.  iii.  23 — 25.  Dan.  ix.  24.  Eph.  i.  7. 
(8)  Hereto,  alone,  the  sinner  betakes  himself,  renouncing  all 
other  apologies  or  defences  whatever.  Psal.  cxxx.  2,  3  ;  cxliii. 
2.  Job.  ix.  2,  3;  xlii.  5 — 7.  Luke  xviii.  13.  Rom.  iii.  24,  25; 
V.  11—19;  viii.  1—3,  32,  33.  Isa.  liii.  5,  6.  Heb.  ix.  13— 15; 
X.  1 — 13.  1  Pet.  ii.  24.  1  John  i.  7.  Other  plea  for  a  sinner 
before  God  there  is  none.  He  who  knows  God  and  himself, 
will  not  provide  or  betake  himself  to  any  other.  Nor  will  he 
as  I  suppose  trust  to  any  other  defence,  were  he  sure  of  all  the 
angels  in  Heaven  to  plead  for  him.  (9)  To  make  this  plea 
effectual  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  and  he  pleads 
his  own  propitiation  for  us.  1  John.  ii.  1,2.  (10)  The  sentence 
hereon  is  absolution,  on  account  of  the  ransom,  blood  or  sacri- 
fice and  righteousness  of  Christ;  with  acceptation  into  favour, 
as  persons  approved  of  God.  Job  xxxiii.  24.  Psal.  xxxii.  1,  2. 
Rom.  iii.  23— 25;  viii.  1,  33,34.  2  Cor.  v.  21.  Gal.  iii.  13,  14. 

Of  what  use  the  declaration  of  this  process  in  the  justification 
of  a  sinner  may  be,  has  been  in  some  measure  before  declared. 
And  if  many  seriously  considered,  that  all  these  things  concur 
and  are  required  to  the  justification  of  every  one  that  shall  be 
saved,  it  may  be  they  would  not  have  such  slight  thoughts  of 
sin,  and  the  way  of  deliverance  from  the  guilt  of  it,  as  they 
seem  to  have.  From  this  consideration  did  the  apostle  learn 
that  "  terror  of  the  Lord,"'  which  made  him  so  earnest  with 
men  to  seek  after  reconciliation;  2  Cor.  v.  10,  11. 

I  had  not  so  long  insisted  on  the  signification  of  the  words 
in  the  Scripture,  but  that  a  right  understanding  of  it,  not  only 
excludes  the  pretences  of  the  Romanists  about  the  infusion  of 
a  habit  of  charity,  from  being  the  formal  cause  of  our  justifi- 
cation before  God,  but  may  also  give  occasion  to  some  to 
take  advice,  into  what  place  or  consideration  they  can  dispose 
their  own  personal  inherent  righteousness  in  their  justification 
before  him. 


OF    JUSTIFICATION.  157 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE    DISTINCTION    OF    A   FIRST    AND    SECOND   JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED. 
THE   CONTINUATION    OF    JUSTIFICATION,    WHEREON    IT    DEPENDS. 

Before  we  inquire  immediately  into  the  nature  and  causes  of 
justification,  there  are  some  things  yet  previously  to  be  consider- 
ed, that  we  may  prevent  all  ambiguity  and  misunderstanding, 
about  the  subject  to  be  treated  of.  I  say,  therefore,  that  the 
evangelical  justification  which  alone  we  plead  about,  is  but 
one,  and  is  at  once  completed.  About  any  other  justification 
before  God  but  one,  we  will  not  contend  with  any.  Those 
who  can  find  out  another,  may  as  they  please  ascribe  what 
they  will  to  it,  or  ascribe  it  to  what  they  will.  Let  us  there- 
fore consider  what  is  ofiered  of  this  nature. 

Those  of  the  Roman  Church  ground  their  whole  doctrine  of 
justification  upon  a  distinction  of  a  double  justification,  which 
they  call  the  first  and  the  second.  The  first  justification,  they 
say,  is  the  infusion  or  the  communication  to  us  of  an  inherent 
principle  or  habit  of  grace  or  charity.  Hereby  they  say  origi- 
nal sin  is  extinguished,  and  all  the  habits  of  sin  are  expelled. 
This  justification  they  say  is  by  faith,  the  obedience  and  satis- 
faction of  Christ  being  the  only  meritorious  cause  thereof.  Only 
they  dispute  many  things  about  preparations  for  it,  and  dispo- 
sitions to  it.  Under  those  terms  the  Council  of  Trent  included 
the  doctrine  of  the  schoolmen  about  rneritum  de  congriio,  as 
both  Hosius  and  Andradius  confess  in  the  defence  of  that  coun- 
cil. And  as  they  are  explained,  they  come  much  to  one;  how- 
ever the  council  warily  avoided  the  name  of  merit,  with  re- 
spect to  this  their  first  justification.  And  the  use  of  faith  herein, 
(which  with  them  is  no  more  but  a  general  assent  to  divine 
revelation)  is  to  bear  the  principal  part  in  these  preparations. 
So  that  to  be  justified  by  faith  according  to  them,  is  lo  have  the 
mind  prepared  by  this  kind  of  believing  to  receive  gratiam 
gratumfacientem,  a  habit  of  grace  expelling  sin,  and  making 
us  acceptable  to  God.  For  upon  this  believing  with  those  other 
duties  of  contrition  and  repentance,  which  must  accompany  it, 
it  is  meet  and  congruous  to  divine  wisdom,  goodness,  and  faith- 
fulness to  give  us  that  grace  whereby  we  are  justified.  And 
this  according  to  them  is  that  justification,  whereof  the  Apostle 
Paul  treats  in  his  Epistles,  from  the  procurement  whereof  he 

14 


158  OF   JTTSTIFICATION. 

excludes  all  the  works  of  the  law.  The  second  justification  is 
an  effect  or  consequent  hereof.  And  the  proper  formal  cause 
thereof  is  good  works,  proceeding  from  this  principle  of  grace 
and  love.  Hence  are  they  the  righteousness  wherewith  be- 
lievers are  righteous  before  God,  whereby  they  merit  eternal 
life.  The  righteousness  of  works  they  call  it,  and  suppose  it 
taught  by  the  Apostle  James.  This  they  constantly  affirm  to 
make  us  jiisios  ex  injustis,  (from  being  unrighteous  to  be  right- 
eous) wherein  they  are  followed  by  others.  For  this  is  the 
way  that  most  of  them  take  to  salve  the  seeming  repugnancy 
between  the  Apostle  Paul  and  James.  Paul  they  say  treats 
of  the  first  justification  only,  whence  he  excludes  all  works, 
for  it  is  by  faith  in  the  manner  before  described.  But  James 
treats  of  the  second  justification,  which  is  by  good  works.  So 
Bellarmine  lib.  2,  cap.  16,  and  lib.  4,  cap.  IS.  And  it  is  the  ex- 
press determination  of  those  at  Trent.  Sess.  6,  cap.  10.  This 
distinction  was  coined  for  no  other  end,  but  to  bring  in  confu- 
sion into  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  gospel.  Justification  through 
the  free  grace  of  God  by  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ  is  evacuated 
by  it.  Sanctification  is  turned  into  a  justification,  and  corrupted 
by  making  the  fruits  of  it  meritorious.  The  whole  nature  of 
evangelical  justification,  consisting  in  the  gratuitous  pardon  of 
sin  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  as  the  Apostle  ex- 
pressly aftirms,  and  the  declaration  of  a  believing  sinner  to  be 
righteous  thereon,  as  the  word  alone  signifies,  is  utterly  defeat- 
ed by  it, 

Howbeit  others  have  embraced  this  distinction  also,  though 
not  absolutely  in  their  sense.  So  do  the  Socinians.  Yea  it 
must  be  allowed  in  some  sense  by  all  that  hold  our  inherent 
righteousness  to  be  the  cause  of,  or  to  have  any  influence  upon 
our  justification  before  God.  For  they  allow  of  a  justification 
which  in  order  of  nature  is  antecedent  to  works  truly  gracious 
and  evangelical.  But  consequential  to  such  works,  there  is  a 
justification  differing  at  least  in  degree,  if  not  in  nature  and 
kind,  upon  the  difference  of  its  formal  cause  which  is  our  new 
obedience,  from  the  former.  But  they  mostly  say,  it  is  only  the 
continuation  of  our  justification  and  the  increase  of  it  as  to  de- 
grees, that  they  intend  by  it.  And  if  they  may  be  allowed  to 
turn  sanctification  into  justification,  and  to  make  a  progress 
therein,  or  an  increase  thereof,  either  in  the  root  or  fruit,  to  be 
a  new  justification,  they  may  make  twenty  justifications  as 
well  as  two  for  aught  I  know.  For  therein  "the  inward  man 
is  renewed  day  by  day,"  2  Cor.  iv.  16;  and  believers  "go  from 


OF  JUSTIFICATION.  159 

Strength  to  strength,"  are  "changed  from  glory  to  glory;"  2 
Cor,  iii.  IS,  by  the  addition  of  one  grace  to  another  in  their  ex- 
ercise, 2  Pet.  i.  5-S,  and  increasing  with  the  increase  of  God, 
Col.  ii.  19,  do  in  all  things  grow  up  into  him  who  is  the  head, 
Ephes.  iv.  15.  And  if  their  justification  consist  herein,  they 
are  justified  anew  every  day.  I  shall  therefore  do  these  two 
things.  (1)  Show  that  this  distinction  is  both  unscriptural  and 
irrational.  (2)  Declare  what  is  the  continuation  of  our  justifi- 
cation, and  whereon  it  depends. 

Justification  by  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  may  be  consider- 
ed either  as  to  the  nature  and  essence  of  it,  or  as  to  its  manifes- 
tation and  declaration.  The  manifestation  of  it  is  twofold.  (1) 
Initial  in  this  life.  (2)  Solemn  and  com.plete  at  the  day  of 
judgment,  whereof  we  shall  treat  afterwards.  The  manifesta- 
tion of  it  in  this  life  respects  either  the  souls  and  consciences  of 
them  that  are  justified,  or  others,  that  is,  the  church  and  the 
world.  And  each  of  these  liave  the  name  of  justification  as- 
signed to  them,  though  our  real  justification  before  God  be  a 
ways  one  and  the  same.  But  a  man  may  be  really  justified' 
before  God,  and  yet  not  have  the  evidence  or  assurance  of  it 
in  his  own  mind.  Wherefore  that  evidence  or  assurance  is  not 
of  the  nature  or  essence  of  that  faith  whereby  we  are  justified, 
nor  does  it  necessarily  accompany  our  justification.  But  this 
manifestation  of  a  man's  own  justification  to  himself,  although 
it  depend  on  many  especial  causes,  which  are  not  necessary 
to  his  justification  absolutely  before  God,  is  not  a  second  justi- 
fication when  it  is  attained;  but  only  the  application  of  the 
former  to  his  conscience  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  There  is  also  a 
manifestation  of  it  with  respect  to  others,  which  in  like  man- 
ner depends  on  other  causes  than  does  our  justification  before 
God  absolutely ;  yet  is  it  not  a  second  justification.  For  it  de- 
pends wholly  on  the  visible  effects  of  that  faith  whereby  we 
are  justified,  as  the  Apostle  James  instructs  us;  yet  is  it  only 
our  single  justification  before  God,  evidenced  and  declared  to 
his  glory,  the  benefit  of  others,  and  increase  of  our  own  reward. 

There  is  also  a  two-fold  justification  before  God  mentioned 
in  the  Scripture.  (1)  By  the  works  of  the  law,  Rom.  ii,  13; 
X.  5.  Matt.  xix.  15 — 19.  Hereto  is  required  an  absolute  con- 
formity to  the  whole  law  of  God  in  our  natures,  all  the  faculties 
of  our  souls,  all  the  principles  of  our  moral  operations,  with 
perfect  actual  obedience  to  all  its  commands,  in  all  instances 
of  duty,  both  for  matter  and  manner.  For  he  is  "  cursed  who 
continueth  not  in  all  things  that  are  written  in  the  law  to  do 


) 


160  OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

them."  And  he  that  breaks  any  one  commandment  is  guihy 
of  the  breach  of  the  whole  law.  Hence  the  Apostle  concludes, 
that  none  can  be  justified  by  the  law,  because  all  have  sinned. 
(2)  There  is  a  justification  by  grace  through  faith  in  the  blood 
of  Christ,  whereof  we  treat.  And  these  ways  of  justification 
are  contrary,  proceeding  on  terms  directly  contradictory,  and 
cannot  be  made  consistent  with,  or  subservient  one  to  the 
other.  But  as  we  shall  manifest  afterwards  the  confounding 
of  them  both,  by  mixing  them  together,  is  that  which  is  aimed 
at  in  this  distinction  of  a  first  and  second  justification.  But 
whatever  respects  it  may  have,  that  justification  which  we 
have  before  God,  in  his  sight  through  Jesus  Christ,  is  but  one, 
and  at  once  full  and  complete,  and  this  distinction  is  a  vain 
and  fond  invention  :  for 

1.  As  it  is  explained  by  the  Papists  it  is  exceedingly  dero- 
gatory to  the  merit  of  Christ.  For  it  leaves  it  no  eflect  towards 
us,  but  only  the  infusion  of  a  habit  of  charity.  When  that  is 
done,  all  that  remains  with  respect  to  our  salvation  is  to  be 

^wrought  by  ourselves.     Christ  has  only  merited  the  first  grace 
for  us,  that  we  therewith  and  thereby  may  merit  life  eternal, 

*  The  merit  of  Christ  being  confined  in  its  effect  to  the  first  jus- 
tification, it  has  no  immediate  influence  upon  any  grace,  privi- 
lege, mercy,  or  glory  that  follow  thereon  ;  but  they  are  all 
effects  of  that  second  justification  which  is  purely  by  works. 
But  this  is  openly  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Scripture. 
For  although  there  be  an  order  of  God's  appointment,  wherein 
we  are  to  be  made  partakers  of  evangelical  privileges  in  grace 
and  glory,  one  before  another,  yet  are  they  all  of  them  the 
immediate  effects  of  the  death  and  obedience  of  Christ ;  who 
"hath  obtained  for  us  eternal  redemption,"  Heb.  ix,  12,  and 
is  "  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  that  do  obey  him," 
Heb.  V.  9.  "Having  by  one  offering  for  ever  perfected  them 
that  are  sanctified."  And  those  who  allow  of  a  secondary,  if 
not  of  a  second  justification  by  our  own  inherent  personal 
righteousnesses,  are  also  guilty  hereof,  though  not  in  the  same 
degree  with  them.  For  whereas  they  ascribe  to  it,  our  acquittal 
from  all  charge  of  sin  after  the  first  justification,  and  a  right- 
eousness accepted  in  judgment,  in  the  judgment  of  God,  as  if 
it  were  complete  and  perfect,  whereon  depends  our  final  abso- 
lution and  reward,  it  is  evident  that  the  immediate  efficacy  of 
the  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ,  has  its  bounds  assigned  to 
it  in  the  first  justification;  which  whether  it  be  taught  in  the 
Scripture  or  no,  we  shall  afterwards  inquire. 


OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


]61 


2.  More  by  this  distinction  is  ascribed  to  ourselves  working 
by  virtue  of  inherent  grace,  as  to  the  merit  and  procurement  of 
spiritual  and  eternal  good,  than  to  the  blood  of  Christ.  For 
that  only  procures  the  first  grace  and  justification  for  us. 
Thereof  alone  it  is  the  meritorious  cause;  or  as  others  ex- 
press it,  we  are  made  partakers  of  the  effects  of  it  in  the  pardon 
of  sins  past.  But  by  virtue  of  this  grace,  we  do  ourselves 
obtain,  procure  or  merit  another,  a  second,  a  complete  justifi- 
cation, the  continuance  of  the  favour  of  God,  and  all  the  fruits 
of  it,  with  life  eternal  and  glory.  So  do  our  works  at  least 
perfect  and  complete  the  merit  of  Christ,  without  which  it  is 
imperfect.  And  those  who  assign  the  continuation  of  our  jus- 
tification wherein  all  the  effects  of  divine  favour  and  grace  are 
contained  to  our  own  personal  righteousness,  as  also  final  jus- 
tification before  God  as  the  pleadable  cause  of  it,  do  follow 
their  steps  to  the  best  of  my  understanding.  But  such  things 
as  these,  may  be  disputed  ;  in  debates  of  which  kind  it  is  in- 
credible almost  what  influence  on  the  minds  of  men,  traditions, 
prejudices,  subtlety  of  invention  and  arguing  obtain,  to  divert 
them  from  real  thoughts  of  the  things  about  which  they  con- 
tend, with  respect  to  themselves  and  their  own  condition.  If 
by  any  means  such  persons  can  be  called  home  to  themselves, 
and  find  leisure  to  think  how,  and  by  what  means  they  shall 
come  to  appear  before  the  high  God,  to  be  freed  from  the  sen- 
tence of  the  law,  and  the  curse  due  to  sin,  to  have  a  pleadable 
righteousness  at  the  judgment  seat  of  God  before  which  they 
stand,  especially  if  a  real  sense  of  these  things  be  implanted 
in  their  minds  by  the  convincing  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  all 
their  subtile  arguments  and  pleas  for  the  mighty  efficacy  of 
their  own  personal  righteousness,  will  sink  in  their  minds  like 
water  at  the  return  of  the  tide,  and  leave  nothing  but  mud 
and  defilement  behind  them. 

3.  This  distinction  of  two  justifications  as  used  and  im- 
proved by  those  of  the  Roman  church,  leaves  us  indeed  no 
justification  at  all.  Something  there  is,  in  the  branches  of  it, 
of  sanctification,  but  of  justification  notlung  at  all.  Their  first 
justification  in  the  infusion  of  a  habit  or  principle  of  grace,  to 
the  expulsion  of  all  habits  of  sin,  is  sanctification,  and  nothing 
else.  And  we  never  contended  that  our  justification  in  such 
a  sense,  if  any  will  take  it  in  such  a  sense,  consists  in  the  im- 
putation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  And  this  justification, 
if  any  will  needs  call  it  so,  is  capable  of  degrees,  both  of  in- 
crease  in   itself,  and  of  exercise  in  its  fruits,  as  was  newly 

14* 


162  OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

declared.  But  not  only  to  call  this  our  own  justification,  v/ith 
a  general  respect  to  the  notion  of  the  word,  as  a  making  of  us 
personally  and  inherently  righteous,  but  to  plead  that  this  is  the 
justification  through  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  declared  in 
the  Scripture,  is  to  exclude  the  only  true  evangelical  justifica- 
tion from  any  place  in  .rehgion.  The  second  branch  of  the 
distinction  has  much  in  it  like  justification  by  the  law,  but 
nothing  of  that  which  is  declared  in  the  gospel.  So  that  this 
distinction  instead  of  coining  us  two  justifications,  according 
to  the  gospel,  has  left  us  none  at  all.     For 

4.  There  is  no  countenance  given  to  this  distinction  in  the 
Scripture.  There  is  indeed  mention  therein,  as  we  observed 
before,  of  a  double  justification  ;  the  one  by  the  law,  the  other 
according  to  the  gospel.-  .But  that  either  of  these  should  on  any 
account  be  sub-distinguished  into  a  first  and  second  of  the 
same  kind,  that  is  either  according  to  the  law  or  the  gospel, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  Scripture  to  intimate.  For  this  second 
justification  is  no  way  applicable  to  what  the  Apostle  James 
discourses 'on  that  subject.  He  treats  of  justification;  but 
speaks  not  one  word  of  an  increase  of  it,  or  addition  to  it,  of  a 
first  or  second.  Besides  he  speaks  expressly  of  him  that  boasts 
of  faith,  which  being  without  works  is  a  dead  faith.  But  he 
who  has  the  first  justification,  by  the  confession  of  our  adver- 
saries, has  a  true  living  taith,  formed  and  enlivened  by  charity. 
And  he  uses  the  sani^'  testimony  concerning  the  justification  of 
Abraham  that  Paul  does,  and  therefore  does  not  intend  another 
but  the  same,  tliough  in  a  diverse  respect.  Nor  does  any  be- 
liever learn  the  least  of  it  in  his  own  experience;  nor  without 
a  design  to  serve  a  further  turn,  would  it  ever  have  entered 
the  minds  of  sober  men  on  the  reading  of  the  Scripture.  And 
it  is  the  bane  of  spiritual  truth,  for  men  in  the  pretended  de- 
claration of  it,  to  coin  arbitrary  distinctions  without  Scripture 
ground  for  them,  and  obtrude  them  as  belonging  to  the  doc- 
trine they  treat  of.  They  serve  to  no  other  end  or  purpose,  but 
only  to  lead  the  minds  of  men  from  the  substance  of  what 
they  ought  to  attend  to,  and  to  engage  all  sorts  of  persons  in 
endless  strites  and  contentions;  If  the  authors  of  this  distinc- 
tion would  but  go  over  the  places  in  the  Scripture,  where  men- 
tion is  made  of  our  justification  before  God,  and  make  a  dis- 
tribution of.  them  into  the  respective  parts  of  their  distinction, 
they  would  quickly  find  themselves  at  an  utter  loss. 

5.  There  is  that  in  the  Scripture  ascribed  to  our  first  justifica- 
tion, if  they  will  needs  call  it  so,  which  leaves  no  room  for 


OF    JUSTIFICATION. 


their  second  feigned  justification.  For  tiie  sole  foundation  and 
pretence  of  this  distinction,  is  a  denial  of  those  things  to  belong 
to  our  justification  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  the  Scripture 
expressly  assigns  to  it.  Let  us  take  out  some  instances  of  what 
belongs  to  the  first,  and  we  shall  quickly  see  how  little  it  is, 
yea,  that  there  is  nothing  left  for  the  pretended  second  justifica- 
tion. For  (1)  therein  do  we  receive  the  complete  pardon  and 
forgiveness  of  our  sins,  Rom.  iv.  4,  6,  7.  Ephes.  i.  7;  iv.  32. 
Acts  xxvi.  IS.  (2)  Thereby  are  we  "made  righteous,"  Rom. 
V.  19;  X.  4.  And  (3)  are  freed  from  "condemnation,  judg- 
ment, and  death,"  John  iii.  16,  19;  v.  25.  Rom.  vhi.  1.  (4) 
Are  reconciled  to  God,  Rom.  v.  9,  10.  2  Cor.  v.  21,  22.     And 

(5)  have  peace  with  him,  and  access  into  the  favour  wherein 
we  stand  by  grace,  with  the  advantages  and  consolations  that 
depend  thereon  in  a  sense  of  his  love.     Rom.  v.  1 — 5.     And 

(6)  we  have  adoption  therewith  and  all  its  privileges ;  John 
i.  12.  And  in  particular  (7)  a  right  and  title  to  the  whole  in- 
heritance of  glory,  Acts  xxvi.  18.  Rom.  viii.  17.  And  (8) 
hereon  "eternal  .life  follows,"  Rom.  viii.  30;  vi.  23.  Which 
things  will  be  again  immediately  spoken  to  upon  another  oc- 
casion. And  if  there  be  any  thing  now  left  for  their  second 
justification  to  do  as  such,  let  them  take  it  as  their  own  ;  these 
things  are  all  of  them  ours,  or  belong  to  that  one  justification 
which  we  assert.  Wherefore  it  is  evident  that  either  the  first 
justification  overthrows  the  second,  rendering  it  needless;  or 
the  second  destroys  the  first,  by  taking  away  what  essentially 
belongs  to  it;  we  must  therofore  part  with  the  one  or  the  other, 
for  consistent  they  are  not.  But  that  which  gives  countenance 
to  the  fiction  and  artifice  of  this  distinction,  and  a  great  many 
more,  is  a  dislike  of  the  doctrine  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  jus- 
tification from  thence  by  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  which 
some  endeavour  hereby  to  send  out  of  the  way  upon  a  pre- 
tended sleeveless  errand,  whilst  they  dress  up  their  own  right- 
eousness in  its  robes,  and  exalt  it  into  the  room  and  dignity 
thereof 

But  there  seems  to  be  more  of  reality  and  difficulty  in  what 
is  pleaded  concerning  the  continuation  of  our  justification. 
For  those  that  are  freely  justified,  are  continued  in  that  state 
until  they  are  glorified.  By  justification  they  are  really  chang- 
ed into  a  new  spiritual  state  and  condition,  and  have  a  new 
relation  given  them  to  God  and  Christ,  to  the  law  and  the  gos- 
pel. And  it  is  inquired  what  it  is  whereon  their  continuation 
in  this  state,  on  their  part,  depends ;  or  what  is  required  of  them 


164  OF   JUSTIFICATIOX. 

that  they  may  be  justified  to  the  end.  And  this  as  some  say  is 
not  faith  alone,  but  also  the  works  of  sincere  obedience.  And 
none  can  deny  but  that  they  are  required  of  all  them  that  are 
justified,  whilst  they  continue  in  a  state  of  justification  on  this 
side  glory,  which  next  and  immediately  ensues  thereto.  But 
whether  upon  our  justification  at  first  before  God,  faith  be 
immediately  dismissed  from  its  place  and  ofiice,  and  its  work 
be  given  over  to  works,  so  as  that  the  continuation  of  our  jus- 
tification should  depend  on  our  own  personal  obedience,  and 
not  on  the  renewed  application  of  faith  to  Christ  and  his 
righteousness,  is  worth  our  inquiry.  Only  I  desire  the  reader 
to  observe  that  whereas  the  necessity  of  owning  a  personal 
obedience  in  justified  persons,  is  on  all  hands  absolutely  agreed, 
the  seeming  diti'erence  that  is  herein,  concerns  not  the  sub- 
stance of  the  doctrine  of  justification,  but  the  manner  of  ex- 
pressing our  conceptions  concerning  the  order  of  the  disposition 
of  God's  grace,  and  our  own  duty,  to  edification,  wherein  I 
shall  use  my  own  liberty,  as  it  is  meet  others  should  do  theirs. 
And  I  shall  otfer  my  thoughts  hereon  in  the  ensuing  observations. 
1.  Justification  is  such  a  work  as  is  at  once  completed  in  all 
the  causes,  and  the  whole  effect  of  it,  though  not  as  to  the  full 
possession  of  all  that  it  gives  right  and  title  to.  For  (1)  All 
our  sins  past,  present,  and  to  come,  were  at  once  imputed  to 
and  laid  upon  Jesus  Christ;  in  what  sense,  we  shall  afterwards 
inquire.  "  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was 
bruised  for  our  iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was 
upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes  are  we  healed.  All  we  like 
sheep  have  gone  astray,  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own 
way,  and  the  Lord  hath  made  to  meet  on  him  the  iniquities  of 
us  all,"  Isa.  lin.  6,  7.  "  Who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his 
own  body  on  the  tree,"  1  Pet.  ii.  24.  The  assertions  being 
indefinite  without  exception  or  limitation,  are  equivalent  to  uni- 
versals.  All  our  sins  were  on  him,  he  bare  them  all  at  once, 
and  therefore  once  died  for  all.  (2)  He  did  therefore  at  once 
"finish  transgression,  made  an  end  of  sin,  made  reconciliation 
for  iniquity,  and  brought  in  everlasting  righteousness,"  Dan. 
ix.  24.  At  once  he  expiated  all  our  sins;  for  "  by  himself  he 
purged  our  sins,  and  then  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
majesty  on  high,"  Heb.  i.  3.  And  we  are  sanctified  or  dedi- 
cated to  God  through  the  "  offering  of  the  body  of  Christ  once 
for  all;  fur  by  one  offering  he  has  perfected"  (consummated, 
completed  as  to  their  spiritual  state)  "  them  that  are  sanctified,^' 
Heb.  X.  10,  14.     He  never  will  do  more  than  he  has  actually 


OF   JUSTIFICATION.  165 

done  already  for  the  expiation  of  all  our  sins  from  first  to  last; 
for  "there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin."  I  do  not  say 
that  hereupon  our  justification  is  complete,  but  only  that  the 
meritorious  procuring  cause  of  it  was  at  once  completed,  and 
is  never  to  be  renewed  or  repeated  any  more;  all  the  inquiry 
is  concerning  the  renewed  application  of  it  to  our  souls  and 
consciences,  whether  that  be  by  faith  alone,  or  by  the  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  do.  (3)  By  our  actual  believing  with 
justifying  faith,  believing  on  Christ,  or  his  name,  we  do  receive 
him,  and  thereby  on  our  first  justification  become  the  sons  of 
God,  John  i.  12.  That  is,  joint  heirs  with  Christ,  and  heirs  of 
God,  Rom.  viii.  17.  Hereby  we  have  a  right  to,  and  an  inter- 
est in  all  the  benefits  of  his  mediation ;  which  is  to  be  at  once 
completely  justified.  "For  in  him  we  are  complete,"  Col.  ii. 
10.  "  For  by  the  faith  that  is  in  him  we  receive  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  a  lot  or  inheritance  among  all  them  that  are  sanc- 
tified," Acts  xxvi.  18,  being  immediately  "justified  from  all 
things  from  which  we  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law,"  Acts 
xiii.  39;  yea  God  thereon  "  blesseth  us  with  all  spiritual  bless- 
ings in  heavenly  things  in  Christ,"  Ephes.  i.  3.  All  these 
things  are  absolutely  inseparable  from  our  first  believing  in 
him,  and  therefore  our  justification  is  at  once  complete.  In 
particular  (4)  on  our  believing,  all  our  sins  are  forgiven.  "He 
hath  quickened  you  together  with  him,  having  forgiven  you 
all  trespasses,"  Col.  ii.  13 — 15.  "For  in  him  we  have  re- 
demption through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace,"  Ephes.  i.  7;  which  one 
place  obviates  all  the  petulant  exceptions  of  some  against 
the  consistency  of  the  free  grace  of  God  in  the  pardon  of 
sins,  and  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  in  the  procurement  thereof 

(5)  There  is  hereon  nothing  to  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  them 
that  are  so  justified.  For  "he  that  believeth  hath  everlasting 
life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation,  but  is  passed  from 
death  unto  life,"  John  v.  24,  And  "  who  shall  lay  any  thing 
unto  the  charge  of  God's  elect?  it  is  God  that  justifieth,  it  is 
Christ  that  died,"  Rom.  viii.  33,  34;  and  there  "is  no  con- 
demnation unto  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  For  "being 
justified  by  faith  we  have  peace  with  God,"  Rom.  v.  1.     And 

(6)  we  have  that  blessedness  hereon  whereof  in  this  life  we 
are  capable,  Rom.  iv.  5,  6.  From  all  which  it  appears  that  our 
justification  is  at  once  complete.  And  (7)  it  must  be  so  or  no 
man  can  be  justified  in  this  world.  For  no  time  can  be  assigned, 
nor  measure  of  obedience  be  limited,  whereon  it  may  be  sup- 


166  OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

posed  that  any  one  comes  to  be  justified  before  God,  who  is 
not  so  on  his  first  believing.  For  the  Scripture  no  where  as- 
signs any  such  time  or  measure.  And  to  say  that  no  man  is 
completely  justified  in  the  sight  of  God  in  this  life,  is  at  once  to 
overthrow  all  that  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures  concerning  justi- 
fication, and  therewith  all  peace  with  God  and  comfort  of  be- 
lievers. But  a  man  acquitted  upon  his  legal  trial,  is  at  once 
discharged  of  all  that  the  law  has  against  him. 

2.  Upon  this  complete  justification,  believers  are  obliged  to 
universal  obedience  to  God.  The  law  is  not  abolished  but  es- 
tablished by  faith.  It  is  neither  abrogated  nor  dispensed  with 
by  such  an  interpretation  as  should  take  off  its  obligation  in 
any  thing  that  it  requires,  nor  as  to  the  degree  and  manner 
wherein  it  requires  it.  Nor  is  it  possible  it  should  be  so.  For 
it  is  nothing  but  the  rule  of  that  obedience  which  the  nature 
of  God  and  man  makes  necessary  from  the  one  to  the  other. 
And  that  is  an  antinomianism  of  the  worst  sort,  and  most  de- 
rogatory to  the  law  of  God,  which  affirms  it  to  be  divested 
of  its  power,  to  oblige  to  perfect  obedience,  so  that  what  is 
not  so,  shall  (as  it  were  in  despite  of  the  law)  be  accepted  as 
if  it  were  so,  to  the  end  for  which  the  law  requires  it.  There 
is  no  medium,  but  that  either  the  law  is  utterly  abolished,  and 
so  there  is  no  sin,  for  "  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  trans- 
gression;" or  it  must  be  allowed  to  require  the  same  obedience 
that  it  did  at  its  first  institution;  and  to  the  same  degree.  Nei- 
ther is  it  in  the  power  of  any  man  living  to  keep  his  conscience 
from  judging  and  condemning  that,^whatever  it  be,  wherein 
he  is  convinced  that  he  comes  short  of  the  perfection  of  the 
law.     Wherefore, 

3.  The  commanding  power  of  the  law  in  positive  precepts 
and  prohibitions  which  justified  persons  are  subject  to,  makes 
and  constitutes  all  their  inconformities  to  it  to  be  no  less  truly 
and  properly  sins  in  their  own  nature,  than  they  would  be  if 
their  persons  were  obnoxious  to  the  curse  of  it.  This  they  are 
not,  nor  can  be;  for  to  be  obnoxious  to  the  curse  of  the  law, 
and  to  be  justified,  are  contradictory;  but  to  be  subject  to  the 
commands  of  the  law,  and  to  be  justified  are  not  so.  But  it  is 
a  subjection  to  the  commanding  power  of  the  law,  and  not 
an  obnoxiousness  to  the  curse  of  the  law,  that  constitutes 
the  nature  of  sin  in  its  transgression.  Wherefore  that  com- 
plete justification  which  is  at  once,  though  it  dissolve  the 
obligation  on  the  sinner  to  punishment  by  the  curse  of  the  law, 
yet  does  it  not  annihilate  the  commanding  authority  of  the  law, 


OP    JTTSTIFICATION.  167 

to  them  that  are  justified,  that  what  is  sin  in  others,  should 
not  be  so  in  them.     See  Rom.  viii.  1,  33,  34. 

Hence  in  the  first  justification  of  believing  sinners,  all  future 
sins  are  remitted  as  to  any  actual  obligation  to  the  curse  of  the 
law,  unless  they  should  fall  into  such  sins  as  should  ipsofacto^ 
forfeit  their  justified  estate,  and  transfer  them  from  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  to  the  covenant  of  works,  which  we  believe  that 
God  in  his  faithfulness  will  preserve  them  from.  And  although 
sin  cannot  be  actually  pardoned  before  it  be  actually  commit- 
ted; yet  may  the  obligation  to  the  curse  of  the  law  be  virtually 
taken  away  from  such  sins  in  justified  persons  as  are  consist- 
ent with  a  justified  estate,  or  the  terms  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  antecedently  to  their  actual  commission.  God  at  once 
in  this  sense  "forgiveth  all  their  iniquities,  and  healeth  all  their 
diseases,  redeemeth  their  life  from  destruction,  and  crowneth 
them  with  loving  kindness  and  mercies,"  Psal.  ciii.  2,  3.  Fu- 
ture sins  are  not  so  pardoned  as  that  when  they  are  committed, 
they  should  be  no  sins,  which  cannot  be,  unless  the  command- 
ing power  of  the  law  be  abrogated.  But  their  respect  to  the 
curse  of  the  law,  or  their  power  to  oblige  the  justified  person 
thereto,  is  taken  away. 

Still  there  abides  the  true  nature  of  sin  in  every  inconformity 
to  or  transgression  of  the  law  in  justified  persons,  which  stands 
in  need  of  daily  actual  pardon,  for  "  there  is  no  man  that  liveth 
and  sinneth  not,"  "  and  if  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  do 
but  deceive  ourselves."  None  are  more  sensible  of  the  guilt  of 
sin,  none  are  more  troubled  for  it,  none  are  more  earnest  in 
supplications  for  the  pardon  of  it,  than  justified  persons.  For 
this  is  the  effect  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  applied  to  the  souls 
of  believers,  as  the  Apostle  declares,  Heb.  x.  1-4,  10,  14,  that 
it  takes  away  conscience,  condemning  the  sinner  for  sin,  with 
respect  to  the  curse  of  the  law ;  but  it  does  not  take  away  con- 
science, condemning  sin  in  the  sinner,  which  on  all  considera- 
tions of  God  and  themselves,  of  the  law  and  the  gospel,  requires 
repentance  on  the  part  of  the  sinner,  and  actual  pardon  on  the 
part  of  God. 

Whereas  therefore  one  essential  part  of  justification  consists 
in  the  pardon  of  our  sins,  and  sins  cannot  be  actually  pardoned 
before  they  are  actually  committed,  our  present  inquiry  is, 
whereon  the  continuation  of  our  justification  depends,  notwith- 
standing the  intervention  of  sin  after  we  are  justified,  whereby 
such  sins  are  actually  pardoned,  and  our  persons  are  continued 
in  a  state  of  acceptance  with  God,  and  have  their  right  to  life 


168  OP   JUSTIFICATION. 

and  glory  uninterrupted.  Justification  is  at  once  complete,  in 
the  imputation  of  a  perfect  rigiiteousness,  the  grant  of  a  right 
and  title  to  the  heavenly  inheritance,  the  actual  pardon  of  all 
past  sins,  and  the  virtual  pardon  of  future  sins,  hut  how  or  by 
what  means,  on  what  terms  and  conditions  this  state  is  contin- 
ued to  those  who  are  once  justified,  whereby  their  righteous- 
ness is  everlasting,  their  title  to  life  and  glory  indefeasible,  and 
all  their  sins  are  actually  pardoned,  is  to  be  inquired. 

For  answer  to  this  inquiry,!  say  (1)  "it  is  God  thatjustifieth," 
and  therefore  the  continuation  of  our  justification  is  his  act  also. 
And  this  on  his  part  depends  on  "•  the  immutability  of  his 
counsel,"  the  unchangeableness  of  the  everlasting  covenant, 
which  is  "ordered  in  all  things  and  sure,"  the  faithfulness  of 
his  promises,  the  efficacy  of  his  grace,  his  coiuplacency  in  the 
propitiation  of  Christ,  with  the  power  of  his  intercession,  and 
the  irrevocable  grant  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  them  that  believe; 
which  things  are  not  of  our  present  inquiry. 

2.  Some  say  that  on  our  part  the  continuation  of  this  state 
of  our  justification,  depends  on  the  condition  of  good  works, 
that  is,  that  they  are  of  the  same  consideration  and  use  with 
faith  itself  herein.  In  our  justification  itself  there  is,  they  will 
grant,  somewhat  peculiar  to  faith;  but  as  to  the  continuation 
of  our  justification,  faith  and  works  have  the  same  influence 
upon  it.  Yea,  some  seem  to  ascribe  it  distinctly  to  works  in 
an  especial  manner,  with  this  only  proviso,  that  they  be  done 
in  faith.  For  my  part  I  cannot  understand  that  the  continua- 
tion of  our  justification  has  any  other  dependencies,  than  has 
our  justification  itself.  As  faith  alone  is  required  to  the  one, 
so  faith  alone  is  required  to  the  other,  although  its  operations 
and  effects  in  the  discharge  of  its  duty  and  office  in  justification, 
and  the  continuation  of  it  are  diverse,  nor  can  it  otherwise  be. 
To  clear  this  assertion,  two  things  are  to  be  observed. 

1.  That  the  continuation  of  our  justification  is  the  continua- 
tion of  the  imputation  of  righteousness  and  the  pardon  of  sins. 
I  do  still  suppose  the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  concur  to 
our  justification,  although  we  have  not  yet  examined  what 
righteousness  it  is  that  is  imputed.  But  that  God  in  our  justi- 
fication imputes  righteousness  to  us,  is  so  expressly  affirmed  by 
the  Apostle,  that  it  must  not  be  called  in  question.  Now  the 
first  act  of  God  in  the  imputation  of  righteousness  cannot  be 
repeated.  And  the  actual  pardon  of  sin  after  justification,  is 
an  effect  and  consequence  of  that  imputation  of  righteousness. 
If  any  man  sin,  there  is  a  propitiation;  deliver  him,  I  have 


OF    JUSTIFICATION. 


169 


found  a  ransom.  Wherefore  unto  this  actual  pardon,  there  is 
nothingrequired,  but  the  application  of  that  righteousness  which 
is  the  cause  of  it;  and  this  is  done  by  faith  only. 

2.  The  continuation  of  our  justification,  is  before  God  or  in 
the  sight  of  God,  no  less  than  our  absolute  justification  is. 
We  speak  not  of  the  sense  and  evidence  of  it  to  cur  own  souls 
to  peace  with  God  ;  nor  of  the  evidencing  and  manifestation 
of  it  to  others  by  its  effects  ;  but  of  the  continuance  of  it  in 
the  sight  of  God.  Whatever  therefore  is  the  means,  condition, 
or  cause  hereof,  is  pleadable  before  God,  and  ought  to  be 
pleaded  to  that  purpose.     So  then  the  inquiry  is, 

What  it  is,  that,  when  a  justified  person  is  guilty  of  sin  (as 
guilty  he  is  more  or  less  every  day)  and  his  conscience  is 
pressed  with  a  sense  thereof,  as  that  only  thing  which  can 
endanger  or  intercept  his  justified  estate,  his  favour  with  God, 
and  title  to  glory,  he  betakes  himself  to,  or  ought  so  to  do,  for 
the  continuance  of  his  state,  and  pardon  of  his  sins;  what  he 
pleads  to  that  purpose,  and  what  is  available  thereto.  That 
this  is  not  his  own  obedience,  his  personal  righteousness,  or 
fulfilling  the  condition  of  the  new  covenant,  is  evident  from 
(1)  the  experience  of  believers  themselves;  (2)  the  testimony 
of  Scripture,  and  (3)  the  example  of  those  whose  cases  are 
recorded  therein. 

1.  Let  the  experience  of  those  that  believe  be  inquired  into; 
for  their  consciences  are  continually  exercised  herein.  What 
is  it  that  they  betake  themselves  to,  what  is  it  that  they  plead 
with  God,  for  the  continuance  of  the  pardon  of  their  sins,  and 
the  acceptance  of  their  persons  before  him  ?  Is  it  any  thing 
but  sovereign  grace  and  mercy,  through  the  blood  of  Christ.^ 
Are  not  all  the  arguments  which  they  plead  to  this  end,  taken 
from  the  topics  of  the  name  of  God,  his  mercy,  grace,  faithful- 
ness, tender  compassion,  covenant  and  promises,  all  manifested, 
and  exercised  in  and  through  the  Lord  Christ  and  his  mediation 
alone?  Do  they  not  herein  place  their  only  trust  and  con- 
fidence for  this  end,  that  their  sins  may  be  pardoned,  and  their 
persons,  though  every  way  unworthy  in  themselves,  beaccepted 
with  God?  Does  any  other  thought  enter  mto  their  hearts? 
Do  they  plead  their  own  righteousness,  obedience,  and  duties 
to  this  purpose?  Do  they  leave  the  prayer  of  the  Publican, 
and  betake  themselves  to  that  of  the  Pharisee?  And  is  it  not 
of  faith  alone,  which  is  that  grace  whereby  they  apply  them- 
selves to  the  mercy  or  grace  of  God  through  the  mediation  of 
Christ?     It  is  true  that  faith  herein,  works  and  acts  itself  in 

15 


170  OP   JUSTIFICATION. 

and  by  godly  sorrow,  repentance,  humiliation,  self-judging, 
and  abhorrence,  fervency  in  prayer  and  supplications,  with  an 
humble  waiting  for  an  answer  of  peace  from  God,  with  engage- 
ments to  renewed  obedience.  But  it  is  faith  alone  that  makes 
applications  to  grace  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  for  the  continua- 
tion of  our  justified  estate,  expressing  itself  in  those  other  ways 
and  effects  mentioned,  from  none  of  which  a  believing  soul 
expects  the  mercy  aimed  at. 

2.  The  Scripture  expressly  declares  this  to  be  the  only  way 
of  the  continuation  of  our  justification.  1  John  ii.  1,2.  "These 
things  write  I  unto  you,  that  you  sin  not.  And  if  any  man 
sin  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the 
righteous;  and  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins."  It  is 
required  of  those  that  are  justified,  that  they  sin  not;  it  is  their 
duty  not  to  sin;  but  yet  it  is  not  so  required  of  them,  as  that 
if  in  any  thing  they  fail  of  their  duty  they  should  immediately 
lose  the  privilege  of  their  justification.  Wherefore  on  a  sup- 
position of  sin,  "if  any  man  sin,"  as  "there  is  no  man  that 
iiveth  and  sinneth  not,"  what  way  is  prescribed  for  such  per- 
sons to  take,  what  are  they  to  apply  themselves  to,  that  their 
sin  may  be  pardoned,  and  their  acceptance  with  God  con- 
tinued; that  is,  for  the  continuation  of  their  justification?  The 
course  in  this  case  directed  to  by  the  apostle,  is  none  other  but 
the  application  of  our  souls  by  faith  to  the  Lord  Christ,  as  our 
advocate  with  the  Father,  on  the  account  of  the  propitiation 
that  he  has  made  for  our  sins.  Under  the  consideration  of  this 
double  act  of  his  sacerdotal  office,  his  oblation  and  intercession, 
he  is  the  object  of  our  faith  in  our  absolute  justification,  and 
so  he  is  as  to  the  continuation  of  it.  So  our  whole  progress  in 
our  justified  estate  in  all  the  degrees  of  it  is  ascribed  to  faith 
alone. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  inquiry,  what  God  requires  of  them  that 
are  justified.  There  is  no  grace,  no  duty,  for  the  substance  of 
them,  nor  for  the  maimer  of  thoir  performance,  that  are  re- 
quired either  by  the  law  or  the  gospel,  but  they  are  obliged  to 
them.  Where  they  are  omitted,  we  acknowledge  that  the 
guilt  of  sin  is  contracted,  and  that  attended  with  such  aggra- 
vations, as  some  will  not  own  or  allow  to  be  confessed  to  God 
himself.  Hence  in  particular,  the  faith  and  grace  of  believers 
constantly  and  deeply  exercise  themselves  in  godly  sorrow, 
repentance,  humiliation  for  sin,  and  confession  of  it  before  God, 
upon  their  apprehensions  of  its  guilt.  And  these  duties  are  so 
far  necessary  to  the  continuation  of  our  justification,  as  that  a 


OF    JUSTIFICATION. 


171 


justified  estate  cannot  consist  with  the  sins  and  vices  that  are 
opposite  to  them.   So  the  apostle  affirms,  that  "  if  we  hve  after 
the  flesh  we  shall  die;"  Rom.  viii.  13.     He  that  does  not  care- 
fully avoid  falling  into  the  fire  or  water,  or  other  things  im- 
mediately destructive  of  life  natural,  cannot  live.     But  these 
are  not  the  things  whereon  life  depends.     Nor  have  the  best 
of  our  duties  any  other  respect  to  the  continuation  of  our  jus- 
tification, but  only  as  in  them  we  are  preserved  from  those 
things  which  are  contrary  to  it,  and  destructive  of  it.     But  the 
sole  question  is  upon  what  the  continuation  of  our  justification 
depends,  not  concerning  what  duties  are  required  of  us,  in  the 
way  of  our   obedience.     If  this  be  that  which  is  intended  in 
this  position,  the  continuation  of  our  justification  depends  on 
our  own  obedience  and  good  works,  or  that  our  own  obedience 
and  good  works  are  the  condition  of  the  continuation  of  our 
justification,  namely,  that  God   indispensably  requires  good 
works  and  obedience  in  all  that  are  justified,  so  that  a  justi- 
fied estate  is  inconsistent  with  the  neglect  of  them  ;  it  is  readily 
granted,  and  I  shall  never  contend  with  any  about  the  way 
whereby  they  choose  to  express  the  conceptions  of  their  minds. 
But  if  it  be  inquired  what  it  is  whereby  we  immediately  con- 
cur in  a  way  of  duty  to  the  continuation  of  our  justified  estate, 
that  is,  the  pardon  of  our  sins  and  acceptance  with  God,  we 
say  it  is  faith  alone.     For  "  the  just  shall  live  by  faith,"  Rom. 
i.   17.     And  as   the  apostle  applies  this  divine  testimony  to 
prove  our  first  or  absolute  justification  to  be  by  faith  alone; 
so  does  he  also  apply  it  to  the  continuation  of  our  justification, 
as  that   which   is   by  the  same   means  only,  Heb.  x.  38,  39. 
"  Now  the  just  shall  live  by  faith:   but  if  any  man  draw  back, 
my  soul   shall   have  no  pleasure  in  him.     But  we  are  not  of 
them  that  draw  back  unto  perdition:  but  of  them  that  believe, 
to  the  saving  of  the  soul."     The  drawing  back  to  perdition 
includes  the  loss  of  a  justified  estate  really  so  or  in  profession. 
In  opposition  thereto  the  apostle  places  believing  to  the  saving 
of  the  soul ;  that  is,  to  the  continuation  of  justification  to  the 
end.     And  herein  it  is,  that  "  the  just  live  by  faith,"  and  the 
loss  of  this  life  can  only  be  by  unbelief.     So  "  the  life  which 
we  now  live  in  the  flesh,  is  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God, 
who  loved  us  and  gave  himself  for  us,"  Gal.  ii.  20.     The  life 
which   we  now   lead  in  the  flesh,  is  the  continuation  of  our 
justification,  a  life  of  righteousness  and  acceptance  with  God, 
in  opposition  to  a  life  by  the  works  of  the  law,  as  the  next 


172 


OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


words  declare,  verse  21.  "  I  do  not  frustrate  the  grace  of  God ; 
for  if  righteousness  come  by  the  law,  then  is  Christ  dead  in 
vain;"  and  this  life  is  by  faith  in  Christ  as  he  "loved  us  and 
gave  himself  for  us,"  that  is,  as  he  was  a  propitiation  for  our 
sins.  This  then  is  the  only  way,  means,  and  cause  on  our  part 
of  the  preservation  of  this  life,  of  the  continuance  of  our  justi- 
fication ;  and  herein  are  we  "  kept  by  tiie  power  of  God 
through  faith  unto  salvation."  Again,  if  the  continuation  of 
our  justification  depends  on  our  own  works  of  obedience,  then 
is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us  only  with  respect 
to  our  justification  at  first,  or  our  first  justification  as  some 
speak.  And  this  indeed  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  school. 
They  teach  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  so  far  imputed 
to  us,  that  on  the  account  thereof  God  gives  us  justifying 
grace,  and  thereby  the  remission  of  sin  in  their  sense,  whence 
they  allow  it  the  meritorious  cause  of  our  justification.  But 
on  a  supposition  thereof,  or  the  reception  of  that  grace,  we  are 
continued  to  be  justified  before  God  by  the  works  we  perform 
by  virtue  of  that  grace  received.  And  though  some  of  them, 
as  Vasquez,  rise  so  high  as  to  affirm,  that  this  grace  and  the 
works  of  it,  need  no  further  respect  to  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  to  deserve  our  second  justification  and  life  eternal ;  yet 
many  of  them  affirm  that  it  is  still  from  the  consideration  of 
the  merit  of  Christ  that  they  are  so  meritorious.  And  the 
same,  for  the  substance  of  it,  is  the  judgment  of  some  of  them, 
who  affirm  the  continuation  of  our  justification  to  depend  on 
our  own  works,  setting  aside  that  ambiguous  term  of  merit. 
For  it  is  on  the  account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  they 
say,  that  our  own  works,  or  imperfect  obedience,  are  so  ac- 
cepted with  God,  as  that  the  continuation  of  our  justification 
depends  thereon.  But  the  apostle  gives  us  another  account 
hereof;  Rom.  V.  1 — 3.  For  he  distinguishes  three  things;  (])  our 
access  into  the  grace  of  God.  (2)  Our  standing  in  that  grace. 
(3)  Our  glorying  in  that  station  against  all  opposition.  By 
the  first  he  expresses  our  absolute  justification  ;  by  the  second 
our  continuation  in  the  state  whereinto  we  are  admitted  by  it; 
and  by  the  third,  the  assurance  of  that  continuation,  notwith- 
standing all  the  oppositions  we  meet  with.  And  all  these  he 
ascribes  equally  to  faith,  without  the  intermixture  of  any 
other  cause  or  condition.  And  other  places,  expressly  to  the 
same  purpose  might  be  pleaded. 

3.  The  examples  of  them  that  believed  and  were  justified 


OF    JUSTIFICATION.  173 

which  are  recorded  in  the  Scripture,  all  bear  witness  to  the 
same  truth.  The  continuation  of  the  justification  of  Abraham 
before  God,  is  declared  to  have  been  by  faith  only;  Rom.  iv.  3. 
For  the  instance  of  his  justification  given  by  the  Apostle  from 
Gen.  XV.  6,  was  long  after  he  was  justified  absolutely.  And  if 
our  first  justification  and  the  continuation  of  it,  did  not  depend 
absolutely  on  the  same  cause,  the  instance  of  the  one  could  not 
be  produced  for  a  proof  of  the  way  and  means  of  the  other,  as 
here  they  are.  And  David,  when  a  justified  believer,  not  only 
places  the  blessedness  of  man  in  the  free  remission  of  sins,  in 
opposition  to  his  own  works  in  general;  Rom.  iv.  6,  7,  but  in 
his  own  particular  case  ascribes  the  continuation  of  his  justifi- 
cation and  acceptance  before  God,  to  grace,  mercy,  and  forgive- 
ness alone,  which  are  no  otherwise  received  but  by  faith.  Psal. 
cxxx.  3 — 5;  cxliii.  2.  All  other  works  and  duties  of  obedience 
accompany  faith  in  the  continuation  of  our  justified  estate,  as 
necessary  effects  and  fruits  of  it,  but  not  as  causes,  means, 
or  conditions  whereon  that  effect  is  suspended.  It  is  patient 
waiting  by  faith,  that  brings  in  the  full  accomplishment  of  the 
promises,  Heb.  vi.  12,  16.  Wherefore  there  is  but  one  justifi- 
cation, and  that  of  one  kind  only,  wherein  we  are  concerned  in 
this  disputation.  The  Scripture  makes  mention  of  no  more; 
and  that  is  the  justification  of  an  ungodly  person  by  faith.  Nor 
shall  we  admit  of  the  consideration  of  any  other.  For  if  there 
be  a  second  justification,  it  must  be  of  the  same  kind  with  the 
first,  or  of  another;  if  it  be  of  the  same  kind,  then  the  sa^e 
person  is  often  justified  with  the  same  kind  of  justification,  or 
at  least  more  than  once;  and  so  on  just  reason  ought  to  be 
often  baptized.  If  it  be  not  of  the  same  kind,  then  the  same 
person  is  justified  before  God  with  two  sorts  of  justification,  of 
both  of  which  the  Scripture  is  utterly  silent.  And  the  contin- 
uation of  our  justification  depends  solely  on  the  same  causes 
with  our  justification  itself. 


15^ 


174  EVANGELICAL    PERSONAL    RIGHTEOUSNESS, 


CHAPTER  VI. 

EVANGELICAL    PERSONAL    RIGHTEOUSNESS,  THE    NATURE  AND    USE    OF    IT. 
FINAL   JUDGMENT,    AND    ITS    RESPECT    TO   JUSTIFICATION. 

The  things  which  we  have  discoursed  concerning  the  first  and 
second  justification,  and  concerning  the  continuation  of  justifi- 
cation, have  no  other  design  but  only  to  clear  the  principal  sub- 
ject whereof  we  treat,  from  what  does  not  necessarily  belong 
unto  it.  For  until  all  things  that  are  either  really  heterogene- 
ous or  otherwise  superfluous,  are  separated  from  it,  we  cannot 
understand  aright  the  true  state  of  the  question  about  the  na- 
ture and  causes  of  our  justification  before  God.  For  we  intend 
one  only  justification,  namely,  that  whereby  God  at  once  freely 
by  his  grace  justifies  a  convinced  sinner  through  faith  in  the 
blood  of  Christ.  Whatever  else  any  will  be  pleased  to  call 
justification,  we  are  not  concerned  in  it,  nor  are  the  consciences 
of  them  that  believe.  To  the  same  purpose  we  must  therefore 
briefly  also  consider  what  is  usually  disputed  about  our  own 
personal  righteousness,  with  a  justification  thereon,  as  also 
what  is  called  sentential  justification  at  the  day  of  judgment. 
And  I  shall  treat  no  further  of  them  in  this  place,  but  only  as 
it  is  necessary  to  free  the  principal  subject  under  consideration, 
from  being  intermixed  with  them,  as  really  it  is  not  concerned 
in  them.  For  what  influence  our  own  personal  righteousness 
hath  upon  our  justification  before  God,  will  be  afterwards  par- 
ticularly examined.  Here  we  shall  only  consider  such  a  notion 
of  it,  as  seems  to  interfere  with  it,  and  disturb  the  right  under- 
standing of  it.  But  yet  I  say  concerning  this  also,  that  it  rather 
belongs  to  the  difference  that  will  be  among  us  in  the  ex- 
pression of  our  conceptions  about  spiritual  things  whilst  we 
know  but  in  part,  than  to  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  itself. 
And  on  such  diflerences  no  breach  of  charity  can  ensue,  whilst 
there  is  a  mutual  grant  of  that  liberty  of  mind,  without  which 
it  will  not  be  preserved  one  moment. 

It  is  therefore  by  some  apprehended  that  there  is  an  evan- 
gelical justification,  upon  our  evangelical  personal  righteous- 
ness. This  they  distinguish  from  that  justification  which  is  by 
faith  through  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  in 
the  sense  wherein  they  allow  it.  For  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  our  legal  righteousness,  whereby  we  have  pardon  of 


THE    NATURE    AND    USE    OF    IT.  175 

sin,  and  acquittal  from  the  sentence  of  the  law,  on  the  ac- 
count of  his  satisfaction  and  merit.  But  moreover  they  say, 
that  as  there  is  a  personal  inherent  righteousness  required  of  us, 
so  there  is  a  justification  by  the  gospel  thereon.  For  by  our 
faith  and  the  plea  of  it,  we  are  justified  from  the  charge  of  un- 
belief; by  our  sincerity  and  the  plea  of  it,  we  are  justified  from 
the  charge  of  hypocrisy;  and  so  by  all  other  graces  and  duties 
from  the  charge  of  the  contrary  sins  in  commission  or  omission, 
so  far  as  such  sins  are  inconsistent  with  the  terms  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace.  How  this  differs  from  the  second  justifica- 
tion before  God,  which  some  say  we  have  by  works  on  the 
supposition  of  the  pardon  of  sin  for  the  satisfaction  of  Christ, 
and  the  infusion  of  an  habit  of  grace  enabling  us  to  perform 
those  works,  is  declared  by  those  who  so  express  themselves. 

Some  add,  that  this  inherent  personal  evangelical  righteous- 
ness, is  the  condition  on  our  part  of  our  legal  righteousness,  or 
of  the  imputation  of  the  rigliteousness  of  Christ  unto  our  justi- 
fication, or  the  pardon  of  sin.  And  those  by  whom  the  satis- 
faction and  merit  of  Christ  are  denied,  make  it  the  only  and 
whole  condition  of  our  absolute  justification  before  God.  So 
speak  all  the  Socinians  constantly.  For  they  deny  our  obe- 
dience to  Christ  to  be  either  the  meritorious  or  efficient  cause 
of  our  justification;  only  they  say  it  is  the  condition  of  it, 
without  which  God  has  decreed  that  we  shall  not  be  made 
partakers  of  the  benefit  thereof.  So  does  Socinus  himself:  "  Our 
works,  that  is,  the  obedience  we  render  to  Christ,  though 
neither  the  efficient  nor  meritorious  cause,  are  yet  the  indispen- 
sable cause  of  our  justification  in  the  sight  of  God  and  of  our 
eternal  [life]  *  *  We  must  beware  of  supposing  that  holiness 
and  innocence  of  life  is  the  effect  of  our  justification  before 
God  ;  or  of  affirming  that  it  is  the  efficient  or  impelling  cause  of 
our  justification  before  God;  it  is  only  a  cause,  without  which 
God  has  decreed  that  we  shall  not  obtain  that  justification."* 
And  in  all  their  discourses  to  this  purpose,  they  assert  our  per- 
sonal righteousness  and  holiness,  or  our  obedience  to  the  com- 
mands of  Christ,  which  they  make  to  be  the  form  and  essence 
of  faith,  to  be  the  condition  whereon  we  obtain  justification  or 

*  Sunt  opera  nostra,  id  est,  ut  dictum  fuit,  obedientia  quam  Christo  praestamus, 
licet  nee  efficiens,  nee  meritoria,  tamen  causa  est  (ut  vocant)  sine  qua  non,  Justi- 
ficationis  coram  Deo  atque  aeternBB  nostrse  *  *  *  Ut  cavendum  est  ne  vitae  sanc- 
titatem  atque  innocentiam  effuctum  jnstificationis  nostrse  coram  Deo  esse  creda- 
mus,  neque  illain  nostras  coram  Deo  jnstificationis  causam  efficientem  aut  impulsi- 
vam  esse  atfinnemus;  sed  tantummodo  causamsine  qua  earn  justificationem  nobis 
non  contingere  decrevit  Deus. 


176 


EVANGELICAL    PERSONAL     RIGHTEOUSNESS, 


the  remission  of  sins.  And  indeed,  considering  what  their  opin- 
ion is  concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  with  their  denial  of  his 
satisfaction  and  merit,  it  is  impossible  (hey  should  frame  any- 
other  idea  of  justification  in  their  minds.  But  what  some  among 
ourselves  intend  by  a  compliance  with  them  herein,  who  are 
not  necessitated  thereto  by  a  prepossession  with  their  opinions 
about  the  person  and  mediation  of  Christ,  I  know  not.  For  as 
for  the  Socinians,  all  their  notions  about  grace,  conversion  to 
God,  justification,  and  the  like  articles  of  our  religion,  are  no- 
thing but  what  they  are  necessarily  cast  upon  by  their  hypothe- 
sis about  the  person  of  Christ. 

At  present  I  shall  only  inquire  into  that  peculiar  evangelical 
justification  which  is  asserted  to  be  the  effect  of  our  own  per- 
sonal righteousness,  or  to  be  granted  us  thereon.  And  here  we 
may  observe, 

1.  That  God  requires  in  and  by  the  gospel  a  sincere  obe- 
dience of  all  who  believe,  to  be  performed  in  and  by  their  own 
persons,  though  through  the  aids  of  grace  supplied  to  them  by 
Jesus  Christ.  He  requires  indeed  obedience,  duties,  and  works 
of  righteousness  in  and  of  all  persons  whatever.  But  the  con- 
sideration of  the  works  which  are  performed  before  believing,  is 
excluded  by  all  from  any  causality  or  interest  in  our  justification 
before  God.  At  least  whatever  any  may  discourse  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  such  works  in  a  way  of  preparation  to  believing 
(whereto  we  have  spoken  before)  none  bring  them  into  the 
verge  of  works  evangelical,  or  obedience  of  faith,  which  would 
imply  a  contradiction.  But  that  the  works  inquired  after  are 
necessary  to  all  believers,  is  granted  by  all;  on  what  grounds 
and  to  what  ends,  we  shall  inquire  afterwards;  they  are  de- 
clared, Ephes.  ii.  10. 

2.  It  is  likewise  granted  that  believers,  from  the  performance 
of  this  obedience,  or  these  works  of  righteousness,  are  denomi- 
nated rigliteous  in  the  Scripture,  and  are  personally  atid  inter- 
nally righteous,  Luke  i.  6.  John  iii.  7.  But  yet  this  denomina- 
tion is  no  where  given  to  them,  with  respect  to  grace  habitually 
inherent,  but  to  the  effects  of  it  in  duties  of  obedience,  as  in 
the  places  mentioned.  "  They  were  both  righteous  before 
God,  walking  in  all  the  commandments  and  ordinances  of  the 
Lord  blameless."  The  latter  words  give  the  reason  of  the 
former,  or  their  being  esteemed  righteous  before  God.  And 
"  he  that  doth  righteousness  is  righteous;"  the  denomination 
is  from  doing.  And  Bellarmine  endeavouring  to  prove  that  it 
is  habitual,  not  actual  righteousness,  which  is  as  he  speaks,  the 


THE    NATURE    AND     USE   OF    IT.  177 

formal  cause  of  our  justification  before  God,  could  not  produce 
one  testimony  of  Scripture  wherein  any  one  is  denominated 
righteous  from  habitual  righteousness,  but  is  forced  to  attempt 
the  proof  of  it  with  this  absurd  argument,  namely,  that  we 
"are  justified  by  the  sacraments,  which  do  not  work  in  us  ac- 
tual but  habitual  righteousness."  And  this  is  sufficient  to  dis- 
cover the  insufficiency  of  a  pretence  for  any  interest  of  our  own 
righteousness  from  this  denomination  of  being  righteous  there- 
by, seeing  it  has  not  respect  to  that  which  is  the  principal  part 
thereof 

3.  This  inherent  righteousness,  taking  it  for  that  which  is 
habitual  and  actual,  is  the  same  with  our  sanctification;  nei- 
ther is  there  any  difference  between  them,  only  they  are  divers 
names  of  the  same  thing.  For  our  sanctification  is  the  inherent 
renovation  of  our  natures,  exerting  and  acting  itself  in  new- 
ness of  life,  or  obedience  to  God  in  Christ,  and  works  of  right- 
eousness. But  sanctification  and  justification  are  in  the  Scrip- 
ture perpetually  distinguished,  whatever  respect  of  causality 
the  one  of  them  may  have  to  the  other.  And  those  who  con- 
found them,  as  the  Papists  do,  do  not  so  much  dispute  about 
the  nature  of  justification,  as  endeavour  to  prove  that  indeed 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  justification  at  all.  For  that  which 
would  serve  most  to  enforce  it,  namely,  the  pardon  of  sin,  they 
place  in  the  exclusion  and  extinction  of  it,  by  the  infusion  of 
inherent  grace,  which  does  not  belong  to  justification. 

4.  By  this  inherent  personal  righteousness,  we  may  be  said 
several  ways  to  be  justified.  As  (1)  In  our  own  consciences, 
in  as  much  as  it  is  an  evidence  in  us  and  to  us,  of  our  partici- 
pation of  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  of  our  accept- 
ance with  him,  which  has  no  small  influence  upon  our  peace. 
So  speaks  the  Apostle;  "  our  rejoicing  is  this,  the  testimony  of 
our  conscience,  that  in  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity,  not  with 
fleshly  wisdom,  but  by  the  grace  of  God,  we  have  had  our 
conversation  in  the  world,"  2  Cor.  i.  12.  who  yet  disclaims  any 
confidence  therein  as  to  his  justification  before  God.  For,  saith 
he,  "  although  I  know  nothing  by  myself,  yet  am  I  not  thereby 
justified,"  1  Cor.  iv.  4.  (2)  Hereby  may  we  be  said  to  be  jus- 
tified before  men;  that  is,  acquitted  of  evils  laid  to  our  charge, 
and  approved  as  righteous  and  unblamable.  For  the  state  of 
things  is  so  in  the  world,  that  the  professors  of  the  gospel  ever 
were  and  ever  will  be  evil  spoken  of  as  evil  doers.  The  rule 
given  them  to  acquit  themselves,  so  that  at  length  they  may  be 
acquitted  and  justified  by  all  that  are  not  absolutely  blinded 


178  EVANGELICAL    PERSONAL    RIGHTEOUSNESS, 

and  hardened  in  wickedness,  is  that  of  a  holy  and  fruitful 
walking,  in  abounding  in  good  works,  1  Pet.  xi.  12;  iii.  16. 
And  so  is  it  with  respect  to  the  Church,  that  we  be  not  judged 
dead,  barren  professors,  but  such  as  have  been  made  "  par- 
takers of  the  like  precious  faith"  with  others.  "Show  me  thy 
faith  by  thy  works."  James  ii.  Wherefore  (3)  this  righteous- 
ness is  pleadable  to  our  justification  against  all  the  charges  of 
Satan,  who  is  the  great  accuser  of  the  brethren,  of  all  that  be- 
lieve. Whether  he  manage  his  charge  privately  in  our  con- 
sciences, which  is  as  it  were  before  God,  as  he  charged  Job;  or 
by  his  instruments  in  all  manner  of  reproaches  and  calumnies, 
whereof  some  in  this  age  have  had  experience  in  an  eminent 
manner,  this  righteousness  is  pleadable  to  our  justification. 

On  a  supposition  of  these  things,  wherein  our  personal  right- 
eousness is  allowed  its  proper  place  and  use  (as  shall  after- 
wards be  more  fully  declared)  I  do  not  understand  that  there 
is  an  evangelical  justification  whereby  believers  are  by  and  on 
the  account  of  this  personal  inherent  righteousness  justified  in 
the  sight  of  God;  nor  does  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  to  our  absolute  justification  before  him  depend  there- 
on.    For, 

1.  None  have  this  personal  righteousness  but  they  are  ante- 
cedently justified  in  the  sight  of  God.  It  is  wholly  the  obe- 
dience of  faith,  proceeding  from  true  and  saving  faith  in  God 
by  Jesus  Christ.  For  as  it  was  said  before,  works  before  faith, 
are  as  by  general  consent  excluded  from  any  interest  in  our 
justification,  and  we  have  proved  that  they  are  neither  condi- 
tions of  it,  dispositions  to  it,  nor  preparations  for  it,  properly 
so  called.  But  every  true  believer  is  immediately  justified  on 
his  believing.  Nor  is  there  any  moment  of  time  wherein  a 
man  is  a  true  believer,  according  as  faith  is  required  in  the 
gospel,  and  yet  not  justified.  For  as  he  is  thereby  united  to 
Christ,  which  is  the  foundation  of  our  justification  by  him,  so 
the  whole  Scripture  testifies,  that  he  that  believes  is  justified;  or 
that  there  is  an  infallible  connexion  in  the  ordination  of  God 
between  true  faith  and  justification.  Wherefore  this  personal 
righteousness  cannot  be  the  condition  of  our  justification  before 
God,  seeing  it  is  consequential  thereon.  What  may  be  pleaded 
in  exception  hereto  from  the  supposition  of  a  second  justifica- 
tion, or  differing  causes  of  the  beginning  and  continuation  of 
justification,  has  been  already  disproved. 

2.  Justification  before  God  is  a  freedom  and  absolution  from 
a  charge  before  God,  at  least  it  is  contained  therein.     And  the 


THE    NATURE    AND    USE   OF    IT.  179 

instrument  of  this  charge  must  either  be  the  law  or  the  gospel. 
But  neither  the  law  nor  the  gospel,  before  God,  or  in  the  sight 
of  God,  charges  true  believers  with  unbelief,  hypocrisy  or  the 
like.  For  '•  who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's 
elect,"  who  are  once  justified  before  him  ?  Such  a  charge  may 
be  laid  against  them  by  Satan,  by  the  Church  sometimes  on 
mistake,  by  the  world,  as  it  was  in  the  case  of  Job,  against 
which  this  righteousness  is  pleadable.  Bat  what  is  charged 
immediately  before  God,  is  charged  by  God  himself,  either  by 
the  law  or  the  gospel;  and  the  judgment  of  God  is  according 
to  truth.  If  this  charge  be  by  the  law,  by  the  law  we  must  be 
justified.  But  the  plea  of  sincere  obedience  will  not  justify  us 
by  the  law.  That  admits  of  nothing  in  satisfaction  to  its  de- 
mands, but  that  which  is  complete  and  perfect.  And  where  the 
gospel  lays  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  any  persons  before  God, 
there  can  be  no  justification  before  God,  unless  we  shall  allow 
the  gospel  to  be  the  instrument  of  a  false  charge.  For  what 
should  justify  him  whom  the  gospel  condemns?  And  if  it  be 
a  justification  by  the  gospel  from  the  charge  of  the  law,  it  ren- 
ders the  death  of  Christ  of  no  etfect.  And  a  justification  with- 
out a  charge,  is  not  to  be  supposed. 

3.  Such  a  justification  as  that  pretended,  is  altogether  need- 
less and  useless.  This  may  easily  be  evinced  from  what  the 
Scripture  asserts  respecting  our  justification  in  the  sight  of  God 
by  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ.  But  this  has  been  spoken  to 
before  on  another  occasion.  Let  that  be  considered,  and  it  will 
quickly  appear,  that  there  is  no  place  nor  use  for  this  new  jus- 
tification upon  our  personal  righteousness,  whether  it  be  sup- 
posed antecedent  and  subordinate  thereto,  or  consequential  and 
perfective  thereof. 

4.  This  pretended  evangelical  justification  has  not  the  nature 
of  any  justification  that  is  mentioned  in  the  Scripture;  that  is, 
neither  that  by  the  law,  nor  that  provided  in  the  gospel.  Jus- 
tification by  the  law  is  this:  ''The  man  that  doth  the  works  of 
it  shall  live  in  them."  This  it  does  not  pretend  to.  And  as  to 
evangelical  justification,  it  is  every  way  contrary  to  it.  For 
therein  the  charge  against  the  person  to  be  justified,  is  true; 
namely,  that  he  has  sinned,  and  has  come  short  of  the  glory  of 
God.  In  this  it  is  false,  namely,  that  a  believer  is  an  unbe- 
liever; a  sincere  person,  a  hypocrite;  one  fruitful  in  good  works, 
altogether  barren.  And  this  false  charge  is  supposed  to  be  ex- 
hibited in  the  name  of  God,  and  before  him.  Our  acquittal  in 
true  evangelical  justification  is  by  absolution  or  pardon  of  sin; 


180  EVANGELICAL    PERSONAL    RIGHTEOUSNESS, 

here  by  a  vindication  ofonr  own  righteon5;ness.  There  the  plea 
of  the  person  to  be  justified  is,  "guilty,''  all  the  world  is  be- 
come guilty  before  God;  but  here  the  plea  of  the  person  on  his 
trial  is,  "not  guilty,"  whereon  the  proofs  and  evidences  of  inno- 
cency  and  righteousness  ensue;  but  this  is  a  plea  which  the  law 
will  not  admit,  and  which  the  gospel  disclaims. 

5.  If  we  are  justified  before  God  on  our  own  personal  right- 
eousness, and  pronounced  righteous  by  him  on  account  thereof, 
then  God  enters  into  judgment  with  us  on  something  in  our- 
selves and  acquits  us  thereon.  For  justification  is  a  juridical 
act  in  and  of  that  judgment  of  God  which  is  according  to  truth. 
But  that  God  should  enter  into  judgment  with  us,  and  justify 
us  with  respect  to  what  he  judges  on,  or  our  personal  right- 
eousness, the  Psalmist  does  not  believe,  Psal.  cxxx.  2,  3;  cxliii. 
2;  nor  did  the  Publican,  Luke  xviii. 

6.  This  persona]  righteousness  of  ours  cannot  be  said  to  be  a 
subordinate  righteousness,  and  subservient  to  our  justification 
by  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  For  therein  God  justifies  the 
ungodly,  and  imputes  righteousness  to  him  that  worketh  not. 
And  besides  it  is  expressly  excluded  from  any  consideration  in 
our  justification,  Ephes.  ii.  7,  8, 

7.  This  personal  inherent  righteousness  wherewith  we  are 
said  to  be  justified  with  this  evangelical  justification,  is  our 
own  righteousness.  Personal  righteousness  and  our  own  right- 
eousness, are  expressions  equivalent.  But  our  own  righteous- 
ness is  not  the  material  cause  of  any  justification  before  God. 
For  (1)  It  is  unmeet  so  to  be,  Isa.  liv.  6.  (2)  It  is  directly  oppos- 
ed to  that  righteousness  whereby  we  are  justified,  as  inconsis- 
tent with  it  to  that  end,  Phil.  iii.  9;  Rom.  x.  3,  4. 

It  will  be  said  that  our  own  righteousness  is  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  law;  but  this  personal  righteousness  is  evangelical. 
But  (1)  It  will  be  hard  to  prove,  that  our  personal  righteous- 
ness is  any  other  but  our  own  righteousness;  and  our  own 
righteousness  is  expressly  rejected  from  any  interest  in  our  jus- 
tification, in  the  places  quoted.  (2)  That  righteousness  which 
is  evangelical  in  respect  of  its  efficient  cause,  its  motives  and 
some  especial  ends,  is  legal  in  respect  of  the  formal  reason  of 
it,  and  our  obligation  to  it.  For  there  is  no  instance  of  duly  be- 
longing to  it,  but  in  general  we  are  obliged  to  its  performance 
by  virtue  of  the  first  commandment,  to  take  the  Lord  for  our 
God.  Acknowledging  therein  his  essential  verily  and  sovereign 
authority,  we  are  obliged  to  believe  all  that  he  shall  reveal,  and 
to  obey  in  all  that  he  shall  command.     (3)  The  good  works  re- 


THE    NATURE    AND    USE    OF    IT. 


181 


jected  from  any  interest  in  our  justification,  are  those  whereto 
we  are  "created  in  Christ  Jesus,"  Ephes.  ii.  8,  9,  the  "works 
of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,"  Tit.  iii,  5,  wherein  the 
Gentiles  are  concerned,  who  never  sought  for  righteousness  by 
the  works  of  the  law,  Rom.  ix.  30.  But  it  will  yet  be  said  that 
these  things  are  evident  in  themselves.  God  requires  an  evan- 
gelical righteousness  in  all  that  believe.  This  Christ  is  not,  nor 
is  it  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  He  may  be  said  to  be  our  legal 
righteousness,  but  our  evangelical  righteousness  he  is  not.  And 
so  far  as  we  are  righteous  with  any  righteousness,  so  far  we 
are  justified  by  it.  For  according  to  this  evangelical  righteous- 
ness, we  must  be  tried;  if  we  have  it  we  shall  be  acquitted, 
and  if  we  have  it  not,  we  shall  be  condemned.  There  is  there- 
fore a  justification  according  to  it. 

I  answer.  (1)  According  to  some  authors  or  maintainers  of 
this  opinion,  I  see  not  but  that  the  Lord  Christ  is  as  much  our 
evangelical  righteousness  as  he  is  our  legal.  For  our  legal 
righteousness  he  is  not  in  their  judgment,  by  a  proper  imputa- 
tion of  his  righteousness  to  us,  but  by  the  communication  of 
the  fruits  of  what  he  did  and  suffered  to  us.  And  so  he  is  our 
evangelical  righteousness  also.  For  our  sanctification  is  an 
effect  or  fruit  of  what  he  did  and  suffered  for  us.  Eph.  v.  25. 
26.  Tit.  ii.  14. 

2.  None  have  this  evangelical  righteousness,  but  those  who 
are  in  order  of  nature  at  least,  justified  before  they  actually  have 
it.  For  it  is  that  which  is  required  of  all  that  believe,  and  are 
justified  thereon.  And  we  need  not  much  inquire  how  a  man 
is  justified,  after  he  is  justified. 

3.  God  has  not  appointed  this  personal  righteousness  in 
order  to  our  justification  before  him  in  this  life,  though  he  has 
appointed  it,  to  evidence  our  justification  before  others,  and 
even  in  his  sight,  as  shall  be  declared.  He  accepts  of  it,  ap- 
proves of  it,  upon  the  account  of  the  free  justification  of  the 
person,  in  and  by  whom  it  is  wrought.  So  he  had  "respect 
unto  Abel  and  his  offering."  But  we  are  not  acquitted  by  it 
from  any  real  charge  in  the  sight  of  God,  nor  do  we  receive 
remission  of  sins  on  the  account  of  it.  And  those  who  place 
the  whole  of  justification  in  the  remission  of  sins,  making  this 
personal  righteousness  the  condition  of  it,  as  the  Socinians  do, 
leave  not  any  place  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  in  our  jus- 
tification. 

4.  If  we  are  in  any  sense  justified  hereby  in  the  sight  of 
God,  we  have  whereof  to  boast  before  him.     We  may  not  have 

16 


182  EVANGELICAL    PERSONAL    RIGHTEOUSNESS, 

SO  absolutely  and  with  respect  to  merit,  yet  we  have  so  com- 
paratively, and  in  respect  of  others,  who  cannot  make  the  same 
plea  for  their  justification.  But  all  boasting  is  excluded.  And 
it  will  not  relieve  to  say,  that  this  personal  righteousness,  is  of 
the  free  grace  and  gift  of  God  to  some,  and  not  to  others ;  for 
we  must  plead  it  as  our  duty,  and  not  as  God's  grace. 

5.  Suppose  a  person  freely  justified  by  the  grace  of  God 
through  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  without  respect  to  any 
works,  obedience,  or  righteousness  of  his  own;  we  freely 
grant ;  ( 1 )  That  God  indispensably  requires  personal  obedience 
of  him,  which  may  be  called  his  evangelical  righteousness; 
(2)  That  God  approves  of,  and  accepts  in  Christ  this  righteous- 
ness so  performed;  (3)  That  hereby  that  faith  whereby  we 
are  justified  is  evidenced,  proved,  manifested,  in  the  sight  of 
God  and  men.  (4)  That  this  righteousness  is  pleadable  to  an 
acquittal  against  any  charge  from  Satan,  the  world,  or  our 
own  consciences;  (5)  That  upon  it,  we  shall  be  declared  right- 
eous at  the  last  day,  and  without  it  none  shall  so  be.  And  if 
any  shall  think  meet  from  hence  to  conclude  upon  an  evangeli- 
cal justification,  or  call  God's  acceptance  of  our  righteousness 
by  that  name,  I  shall  by  no  means  contend  with  them.  And 
wherever  this  inquiry  is  made,  not  how  a  sinner  guilty  of 
death  and  obnoxious  to  the  curse,  shall  be  pardoned,  acquitted 
and  justified,  which  is  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone  im- 
puted to  him  ;  but  how  a  man  that  professes  evangelical  faith,  or 
faith  in  Christ,  shall  be  tried,  judged,  and  whereon  as  such  he 
shall  be  justified,  we  grant  that  it  is  and  must  be  by  his  own 
personal  sincere  obedience. 

And  these  things  are  spoken,  not  with  a  design  to  contend 
with  any,  or  to  oppose  the  opinions  of  any  ;  but  only  to  remove 
from  the  principal  question  in  hand,  those  things  which  do  not 
belong  to  it. 

A  very  few  words  will  also  free  our  inquiry  from  any  con- 
cernment, in  that  which  is  called  sentential  justification,  at  the 
day  of  judgment.  For  of  what  nature  soever  it  be,  the  person 
concerning  whom  that  sentence  is  pronounced,  was(l)  actually 
and  completely  justified  before  God  in  this  world;  (2)  made 
partaker  of  all  the  benefits  of  that  jnstification,  even  to  a  blessed 
resurrection  in  glory;  "it  is  raised  in  glory;"  1  Cor.  xv.,  (3) 
The  souls  of  the  most  will  long  before  have  enjoyed  a  blessed 
rest  with  God,  absolutely  discharged  and  acquitted  from  all 
their  labours,  and  all  their  sins;  there  remains  nothing  but  an 
actual    admission    of  the    whole   person  into  eternal  glory. 


THE    NATURE    AND    USE    OF    IT.  183 

Wherefore  this  judgment  can  be  no  more  but  declaratory  to  the 
glory  of  God,  and  the  everlasting  refreshment  of  them  that  have 
believed.  And  without  reducing  it  to  a  new  justification,  as  it 
is  no  where  called  in  the  Scripture  ;  the  ends  of  that  solemn 
judgment,  in  the  manifestation  of  the  wisdom  and  righteousness 
of  God,  in  appointing  the  way  of  salvation  by  Christ,  as  well 
as  in  giving  of  the  law  ;  the  public  conviction  of  them  by  whom 
the  law  has  been  transgressed  and  the  gospel  despised;  the 
vindication  of  the  righteousness,  power  and  wisdom  of  God  in 
the  rule  of  the  world  by  his  providence,  wherein  for  the  most 
part,  his  paths  to  all  in  this  life,  "  are  in  the  deep,  and  his  foot- 
steps are  not  known ;"  the  glory  and  honour  of  Jesus  Christ, 
triumphing  over  all  his  enemies,  then  fully  made  "  his  foot- 
stool;" and  the  glorious  exaltation  of  grace  in  all  that  believe, 
with  sundry  other  things  of  a  like  tendency  to  the  ultimate 
manifestation  of  divine  glory  in  the  creation  and  guidance  of 
all  things,  are  sufficiently  manifest. 

And  hence  it  appears,  how  little  force  there  is  in  that  argu- 
ment which  some  pretend  to  be  of  so  great  weight  in  this  cause. 
'As  every  one  (they  say)  shall  be  judged  of  God  at  the  last 
day,  in  the  same  way  and  manner,  or  on  the  same  grounds  is 
he  justified  of  God  in  this  life.  But  by  works  and  not  by  faith 
alone,  every  one  shall  be  judged  at  the  last  day  ;  wherefore  by- 
works  and  not  by  faith  alone  every  one  is  justified  before  God 
in  this  life.'  For, 

1.  It  is  no  where  said  that  we  shall  be  judged  at  the  last  day, 
ex  operihus,  by  our  works;  but,  only  that  God  will  render  unto 
men  secundum  opera,  according  to  their  works.  But  God  does 
not  justify  any  in  this  life  secundum  opera;  being  justified 
"  freely  by  his  grace,  and,  not  according  to  the  works  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done."  And  we  are  every  where 
said  to  be  justified  in  this  life,  ex  fide,  per  fidem,  by  faith;  but 
no  vi\\eve  propter  fidem,  for  our  faith  ;  or  that  God  justifies  us 
secundum  fidem,  according  to  our  faith.  And  we  are  not  to 
depart  from  the  expressions  of  the  Scripture  where  such  a  dif- 
ference is  constantly  observed. 

2.  It  is  somewhat  strange  that  a  man  should  be  judged  at 
the  last  day,  and  justified  in  this  life,  just  in  the  same  way  and 
manner,  that  is  with  respect  to  faith  and  works,  when  the 
Scripture  constantly  ascribes  our  justification  before  God  to 
faith  without  works;  and  the  judgment  at  the  last  day  is  said 
to  be  according  to  works,  without  any  mention  of  faith. 

3.  If  justification  and  eternal  judgment  proceed  absolutely 


J  84  EVANGELICAL    PERSONAL    RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

on  the  same  grounds,  reasons,  and  causes,  then  if  men  had  not 
done  what  they  shall  be  condemned  for  doing  at  the  last  day, 
they  should  have  been  justified  in  this  life.  But  many  shall  be 
condemned  only  for  sins  against  the  light  of  nature,  Rom.  ii. 
12,  as  never  having  the  written  law  or  gospel  made  known  to 
them.  Wherefore  to  such  persons,  to  abstain  from  sins  against 
the  light  of  nature,  would  be  sutficient  to  their  justification, 
without  any  knowledge  of  Christ  or  the  gospel. 

4.  This  proposition,  that  God  pardons  men  their  sins,  gives 
them  the  adoption  of  children  with  a  right  to  the  heavenly  in- 
heritance according  to  their  works,  is  not  only  foreign  to  the 
gospel,  but  contradictory  to  it,  and  destructive  of  it,  as  con- 
trary to  all  express  testimonies  of  the  Scripture  both  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New,  where  these  things  are  spoken  of. 
But  that  God  judges  all  men,  and  retiders  to  all  men  at  the  last 
judgment  according  to  their  works,  is  true  and  affirmed  in  the 
Scripture. 

5.  In  our  justification  in  this  life  by  faith,  Christ  is  considered 
as  our  propitiation  and  advocate,  as  he  who  has  made  atone- 
ment for  sin,  and  brought  in  everlasting  righteousness.  But 
at  the  last  day,  and  in  the  last  judgment,  he  is  considered  only 
as  the  judge. 

6.  The  end  of  God  in  our  justification  is  the  glory  of  his 
grace;  Eph.  i.  6.  But  the  end  of  God  in  the  last  judgment  is 
the  glory  of  his  remunerative  righteousness,  2  Tim.  iv.  8. 

7.  The  representation  that  is  made  of  the  final  judgment, 
Matth.  vii.  and  xxv.  is  only  of  the  visible  church.  And  therein 
the  plea  of  faith  as  to  the  profession  of  it  is  common  to  all,  and 
is  equally  made  by  all.  Upon  that  plea  of  faith,  it  is  put  to 
the  trial  whether  it  were  sincere  true  faith  or  no,  or  only  that 
which  was  dead  and  barren.  And  this  trial  is  made  solely  by 
the  fruits  and  effects  of  it,  and  otherwise  in  the  public  declara- 
tion of  things  to  all,  it  cannot  be  made.  Otherwise  the  faith 
whereby  we  are  justified  comes  not  into  judgment  at  the  last 
day.     See  John  v.  24,  whh  Mark  xvi.  16. 


IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OF  IT.  185 


CHAPTER  VII. 

IMPUTATION,    AND  THE  NATURE   OF   IT;    WITH  THE    IMPUTATION   OF  THE 
RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST  IN  PARTICULAR. 

The  first  express  record  of  the  justification  of  any  sinner  is  of 
Abraham.  Others  were  justified  before  him  from  thei)eginning, 
and  there  is  that  affirmed  of  them,  which  sufficiently  evidences 
them  so  to  have  been.  But  this  prerogative  was  reserved  for 
the  father  of  tlie  faithful,  that  his  justification  and  the  express 
way  and  manner  of  it,  should  be  first  entered  on  the  sacred 
record.  So  it  is  Gen.  xv.  6.  "  He  believed  in  the  Lord,  and  it 
was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness."  naa'n''  It  wasMccouni- 
ed  to  him,  or  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness.  E%oyi,(i6rj — it 
was  counted,  reckoned,  imputed.  "And  it  was  not  written  for 
his  sake  alone,  that  it  was  imputed  unto  him,  but  for  us  also 
unto  whom  it  shall  be  imputed  if  we  believe,"  Rora.  iv.  23,  24. 
Wherefore  the  first  express  declaration  of  the  nature  of  justifi- 
cation in  the  Scripture,  affirms  it  to  be  by  imputation  ;  the  im- 
putation of  somewhat  to  righteousness;  and  this  done  in  that 
place  and  instance,  which  is  recorded  on  purpose,  as  the  pre- 
cedent and  example  of  all  those  that  shall  be  justified.  As  he 
was  justified  so  are  we,  and  no  otherwise. 

Under  the  New  Testament  there  was  a  necessity  of  a  more 
full  and  clear  declaration  of  the  doctrine  of  it.  For  it  is  among 
the  first  and  principal  parts  of  that  heavenly  mystery  of  truth 
which  was  to  be  "brought  to  light  by  the  gospel."  And  be- 
sides there  was  from  the  first  a  strong  and  dangerous  opposi- 
tion made  to  it.  For  this  matter  of  justification,  the  doctrine  of 
it,  and  what  necessarily  belongs  thereto,  was  that  whereon  the 
Jewish  church  broke  off  from  God,  refused  Christ  and  the  gos- 
pel, perishing  in  their  sins;  as  is  expressly  declared,  Rom.  ix. 
31;  X.  3,4.  And  in  like  manner  a  dislike  of  it,  an  opposition 
to  it,  ever  was  and  ever  will  be  a  principle  and  cause  of  the 
apostasy  of  any  professing  church,  from  Christ  and  the  gospel, 
that  falls  under  the  power  and  deceit  of  them;  as  it  fell  out 
afterwards  in  the  churches  of  the  Galatians.  But  in  this  state 
the  doctrine  of  justification  was  fully  declared,  stated,  and 
vindicated  by  the  apostle  Paul  in  a  peculiar  manner.  And  he 
does  it  especially  by  affirming  and  proving  that  we  have  the 
righteousness  whereby  and  wherewith  we  are  justified,  by  im- 

16* 


186  IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OF  IT. 

putation;  or  that  our  justification  consists  in  the  non-imputa- 
tion of  sin,  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness. 

But  yet,  although  the  first  recorded  instance  of  justification, 
and  which  was  so  recorded,  that  it  might  be  an  example,  and 
represent  the  justification  of  all  that  should  be  justified  to  the 
end  of  the  world,  is  expressed  by  imputation,  and  rigiiteous- 
ness  imputed,  and  the  doctrine  of  it  in  that  great  case,  wherein 
the  eternal  welfare  of  the  church  of  the  Jews,  or  their  ruin,  was 
concerned,  is  so  expressed  by  the  Apostle;  yet  is  it  so  fallen 
out  in  our  days  that  nothing  in  religion  is  more  maligned,  more 
reproached,  more  despised,  than  the  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness to  us,  or  an  imputed  righteousness.  A  putative  righteous- 
ness, the  shadow  of  a  dream,  a  fancy,  a  mummery,  an  imagi- 
na.tion,  say  some  among  us.  An  opinion, /cerfa,  execranda, 
perniciosa,  detestanda,  saith  Socinus.  And  opposition  arises 
to  it  every  day  from  great  variety  of  principles.  For  those  by 
whom  it  is  opposed  and  rejected  can  by  no  means  agree  what 
to  set  up  in  the  place  of  it. 

However,  the  weight  and  importance  of  this  doctrine  is  on 
all  hands  acknowledged,  whether  it  be  true  or  false.  It  is  not 
a  dispute  about  notions,  terms,  and  speculations,  wherein  Chris- 
tian practice  ishttle  or  not  at  all  concerned,  (of  which  nature 
many  are  needlessly  contended  about)  but  such  as  has  an  imme- 
diate influence  upon  our  whole  present  duty,  with  our  eternal 
welfare  or  ruin.  Those  by  whom  this  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness is  rejected,  affirm  that  the  faiih  and  doctrine  of  it,  over- 
throw the  necessity  of  gospel  obedience,  of  personal  righteous- 
ne^ss,  and  good  works,  bringing  in  antinomianism  and  libertin- 
ism in.ttl|.  Hereon  it  must  of  necessity  be  destructive  of  sal- 
vation, in  those  who  believe  it,  and  conform  their  practice 
thereto.  And  those  on  the  other  hand  by  whom  it  is  believed, 
seeing  they  judge  it  impossible  that  any  man  should  be  justi- 
fied before  God  any  other  way,  but  by  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  accordingly  judge,  that  without  it  none 
can  be  saved.  Hence  a  learned  man  of  late  concludes  his 
discourse  concerning  it;  hactenus  de  imputotione  Justitiae 
Christi,  sine  qua  nemo  iinquam  aut  salvatus  est,  aut  salvari 
queat.  .Tustificat.  Paulin.  cap.  8.  "Thus  far  of  the  imputation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  without  which  no  man  was  ever 
saved,  or  can  be.''  They  do  not  think  nor  judge,  that  all  those 
are  excluded  from  salvation,  who  cannot  apprehend,  or  who 
deny  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  as  by  them  declared.     But  they  judge  that  they  are  so. 


IMPUTATION.  AND  THE  NATURE  OF  IT. 


187 


to  whom  that  righteousness  is  not  really  irnjnited;  nor  can  they 
do  otherwise,  whilst  they  make  it  the  foundation  of  all  their 
own  acceptance  wiih  God  and  eternal  salvation.  These  things 
greatly  diifer.  To  believe  the  doctrine  of  it,  or  not  to  believe 
it,  as  thus  or  thus  explained,  is  one  thing:  and  to  enjoy  the 
thing,  or  not  enjoy  it,  is  another.  I  no  way  doubt,  but  that 
many  men  receive  more  grace  from  God,  than  they  understand 
or  will  own;  and  have  a  greater  efficacy  of  it  in  them,  than 
they  will  believe.  /Men  may  be  really  saved,  by  that  grace 
which  doctrinally  they  deny;  and  they  may  be  justified  by  the 
imputation  of  that  righteousness  which  in  opinion  they  deny 
to  be  imputed./  For  the  faith  of  it,  is  included  in  that  general 
assent  which  tney  give  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  and  such  an 
adherence  to  Christ  may  ensue  thereon,  as  that  their  mistake  of 
the  way  whereby  they  are  saved  by  him,  shall  not  defraud 
them  of  a  real  interest  (herein.  And  for  my  part,  I  must  say, 
that  notwithstanding  all  the  disputes  that  I  see  and  read  about 
justification  (some  whereof  are  full  of  off"ence  and  scandal)  I 
do  not  believe  but  that  the  authors  of  them,  (if  they  be  not 
Socinians  throughout,  denying  the  whole  merit  and  satisfaction 
of  Christ)  do  really  trust  to  the  mediation  of  Christ  for  the 
pardon  of  their  sins,  and  acceptance  with  God,  and  not  to  their 
own  works  or  obedience.  Nor  will  I  believe  the  contrary, 
until  they  expressly  declare  it.  Of  the  oV)jection  on  the  other 
hand,  concerning  the  danger  of  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Clirist,  in  reference  to  the  necessity  of 
holiness,  and  works  of  righteousness,  we  must  treat  afterwards. 
The  judgment  of  the  reformed  churches  herein  is  known  to 
all,  and  must  be  confessed,  unless  we  intend  by  vain  cavils  to 
increase  and  perpetuate  contentions.  Especially  the  Church  of 
England  is  in  her  doctrine  express  as  to  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  both  active  and  passive,  as  it  is  usually 
distinguished.  This  has  been  of  late  so  fully  manifested  out  of 
her  authentic  writings,  that  is,  the  "  Articles  of  Religion,"  and 
"Books  of  Homilies,"  and  other  writings  publicly  authorized, 
that  it  is  altogether  needless  to  give  any  further  demonstration 
of  it.  Those  who  pretend  themselves  to  be  otiierwise  minded, 
are  such  as  I  will  not  contend  with.  For  to  what  purpose  is  it 
to  dispute  with  men  who  will  deny  the  sun  to  shine,  when  they 
cannot  bear  the  heat  of  its  beams.  Wherefore  in  what  I  have 
to  offer  on  this  subject,  I  shall  not  in  the  least  depart  from  the 
ancient  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England;  yea  I  have  no  de- 
sign but  to  declare  and  vindicate  it,  as  God  shall  enable. 


1 


188  IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OF  IT. 

There  are  indeed  sundry  differences  atnong  persons  learned, 
sober,  and  orthodox  (if  that  term  displease  not)  in  the  way  and 
manner  of  the  explication  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  who  yet  all  of  them 
agree  in  the  substance  of  it,  in  all  those  things  wherein  the 
grace  of  God,  the  honour  of  Christ,  and  the  peace  of  the  souls 
of  men  are  principally  concerned.  As  far  as  it  is  possible  for 
me,  I  shall  avoid  the  concerning  myself  at  present,  in  these  dif- 
ferences. For  to  what  purpose  is  it  to  contend  about  them, 
whilst  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  itself  is  openly  opposed 
and  rejected?  why  should  we  debate  about  the  order  and  beau- 
tifying of  the  rooms  in  a  house,  whilst  fire  is  set  to  the  whole.-* 
when  that  is  well  quenched,  we  may  return  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  best  means  for  the  disposal  and  use  of  the  several 
parts  of  it. 

There  are  two  grand  parties  by  whom  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  op- 
posed, namely,  the  Papists  and  the  Socinians.  But  they  pro- 
ceed on  ditlerent  principles,  and  to  different  ends.  The  design  of 
the  one  is  to  exalt  their  own  merits,  of  the  other  to  destroy  the 
merit  of  Christ.  But  besides  these  who  trade  in  company,  we 
have  many  interlopers,  who  coming  in  on  their  hand,  make 
bold  to  borrow  from  both,  as  they  see  occasion.  We  shall  have 
to  do  with  them  all  in  our  progress;  not  with  the  persons  of 
any,  nor  the  way  and  maimer  of  their  expressing  themselves, 
but  the  opinions  of  all  of  them  so  far  as  they  are  opposite  to 
the  truth.  For  it  is  that  which  wise  men  despise  and  good  men 
bewail,  to  see  persons  pretending  to  religion  and  piety,  to  cavil 
at  expressions,  to  contend  about  words,  to  endeavour  the  fas- 
tening of  opinions  on  men  which  they  own  not,  and  thereon 
mutually  to  revile  one  another,  publishing  all  to  the  world,  as 
some  great  achievement  or  victory.  This  is  not  the  way  to 
teach  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  nor  to  promote  the  edification  of 
the  church.  But  in  general,  the  importance  of  the  cause  to  be 
pleaded,  the  greatness  of  the  opposition  that  is  made  to  the 
truth,  and  the  high  concernment  of  the  souls  of  believers,  to 
be  rightly  instructed  in  it,  call  for  a  renewed  declaration  and 
vindication  of  it.  And  what  I  shall  attempt  to  this  purpose,  I 
do  it  under  (his  persuasion,  that  the  life  and  continuance  of  any 
church  on  the  one  hand,  and  its  apostasy  or  ruin  on  the  other, 
do  depend  in  an  eminent  manner  on  the  preservation  or  rejec- 
tion of  the  truth  in  this  article  of  religion;  and  I  shall  add,  as 
it  has  been  professed,  received,  and  believed  in  the  Church  of 
England  in  former  days. 


IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OF  IT.  189 

The  first  thing  we  are  to  consider  is  the  meaning  of  these 
words  to  impute  and  imputation.  For  from  a  mere  plain  de- 
claration hereof,  it  will  appear  that  sundry  things  charged  on 
a  supposition  of  the  imputation  we  plead  for,  are  vain  and 
groundless,  or  the  charge  itself  is  so. 

2Dn  the  word  first  used  to  this  purpose,  signifies  to  think,  to 
esteem,  Xojudi^e,  or  to  refer  a  thing  or  matter  to  any;  to  i^n- 
pute,  or  to  be  imputed  iox  good  or  evil: — see  Levit.  vii.  18; 
xvii.  4;  and  Psalm  cvi.  31;  "and  it  was  counted,  [reckoned, 
imputed]  unto  him  for  righteousness:" — to  judge  or  esteem 
this  or  that,  good  or  evil,  to  belong  to  him,  to  be  his.  The  Lxx. 
express  it  by  ^oyt^w  and  7Loyifo;uat;  as  do  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  also.  And  these  are  rendered  by  reputare,  impu- 
tare,  acceptum  ferre,  tribuere,  assignare,  ascribere.  But  there 
is  a  diflierent  signification  among  these  words;  in  particular,  to 
be  "reputed  righteous,"  and  to  have  "righteousness  imputed," 
diff'er,  as  cause  and  efl'ect.  For,  that  any  may  be  reputed 
righteous,  that  is,  be  judged  or  esteemed  so  to  be,  there  must 
be  a  real  foundation  of  that  reputation,  or  it  is  a  mistake,  and 
not  a  right  judgment;  as  a  man  may  be  reputed  to  be  wise, 
who  is  a  fool,  or  reputed  to  be  rich,  who  is  a  beggar.  Where- 
fore he  that  is  reputed  righteous,  must  either  have  a  righteous- 
ness of  his  own,  or  another  antecedently  imputed  to  him,  as 
the  foundation  of  that  reputation.  Wherefore  to  impute  right- 
eousness to  one  that  hath  none  of  his  own,  is  not  to  repute  him 
to  be  righteous,  who  is  indeed  unrighteous,  but  it  is  to  com- 
municate a  righteousness  to  him,  that  he  may  rightly  and  justly 
be  esteemed,  judged,  or  reputed  righteous. 

Imputare  is  a  word  that  the  Latin  tongue  owns  in  the  sense 
wherein  it  is  used  by  divines.  Optime  de  2Josteris  meruisti, 
ad  quos  pervenerit  incorrupta  rerum  fides,  magno  authori 
suo  imputata.  "You  have  deserved  well  of  posterity,  to  whom 
[by  the  publication  of  your  father's  works]  you  will  have  fur- 
nished an  authentic  history  of  past  events,  accredited  to  its  greaf 
author."  Senec.  ad  Mart.  And  Pliny,  lib.  IS,  cap.  i.,  in  his 
apology  for  the  earth,  our  common  parent,  nostris  earn  crimi- 
nibus  urgemus,  culpanique  nostram  illi  imputamus.  "  We 
load  her  with  our  crimes,  and  impute  our  own  faults  to  her." 

In  their  sense,  to  impute  any  thing  to  another,  is,  if  it  be 
evil,  to  charge  it  on  him,  to  burden  him  with  it;  so  saith  Pliny, 
"we  impute  our  own  faults  to  the  earth,"  or  charge  them  upon 
it.  If  it  be  good,  it  is  to  ascribe  it  to  him  as  his  own,  whether 
originally  it  were  so  or  no;  magno  authori  imputata.     Vas- 


190  IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OF  IT. 

quez,  in  Thorn.  22.  Tom.  2.  Disp.  132,  attempts  the  sense  of  the 
word,  but  confounds  it  with  reputare.  Impiitare  aut  repu- 
tare  quidquam  alinii,  est  idem  atque  inter  ea  quse  sunt  ip- 
sius,  et  ad  euni  pertinent,  connumerare  et  recensere.  "  To  im- 
pute a  thing  to  a  person,  is  to  reckon  it  among  those  things 
which  are  his  and  belong  to  him."  This  is  reputare  properly; 
2W/?w^are  includes  an  act  antecedent  to  this  accounting  ores- 
teeming  a  thing  to  belong  to  any  person. 

But  whereas  that  may  be  imputed  to  us  which  is  really  our 
own  antecedently  to  that  imputation,  the  word  must  needs 
have  a  double  sense,  as  it  has  in  the  instances  given  out  of 
Latin  authors  now  mentioned.     And, 

1.  To  impute  to  us  that  which  was  really  ours,  antecedently 
to  that  imputation,  includes  two  things  in  it.  (1)  An  acknow- 
ledgment or  judgment,  that  the  thing  so  imputed  is  really  and 
truly  ours,  or  in  us.  He  that  imputes  wisdom  or  learning  to 
any  man,  does  in  the  first  place  acknowledge  him  to  be  wise 
or  learned.  (2)  A  dealing  with  them  according  to  it,  whether 
it  be  good  or  evil.  So  when  upon  trial  a  man  is  acquitted  be- 
cause he  is  found  righteous;  first  he  is  judged  and  esteemed 
righteous,  and  then  dealt  with  as  a  righteous  person;  his  right- 
eousness is  imputed  to  him.  See  this  exemplified.  Gen.  xxx.  33. 

2,  To  impute  to  us  that  which  is  not  our  own  antecedently 
to  that  imputation,  includes  also  in  it  two  things.  (1)  A  grant 
or  donation  of  the  thing  itself  to  us  to  be  ours,  on  some  just 
ground  and  foundation.  For  a  thing  must  be  made  ours,  be- 
fore we  can  justly  be  dealt  with  according  to  what  is  required 
on  the  account  of  it.  (2)  A  will  of  dealing  with  us,  or  an  ac- 
tual dealing  with  us  according  to  that  which  is  so  made  ours. 
For  in  this  matter  whereof  we  treat,  the  most  holy  and  right- 
eous God  does  not  justify  any,  that  is,  absolve  them  from  sin, 
pronounce  them  righteous,  and  thereon  grant  them  right  and 
title  to  eternal  life,  but  upon  the  interveniency  of  a  true  and 
complete  righteousness,  truly  and  completely  made  the  right- 
eousness of  them  that  are  to  be  justified,  in  order  of  nature 
antecedently  to  their  justification.  But  these  things  will  be 
yet  made  more  clear  by  instances,  and  it  is  necessary  they 
should  be  so. 

1.  There  is  an  imputation  to  us  of  that  which  is  really  our 
own,  inherent  in  us,  performed  by  us,  antecedently  to  that  im- 
putation, and  this  whether  it  be  evil  or  good.  The  rule  and 
nature  hereof  is  given  and  expressed,  Ezek.  xviii.  20.  "  The 
righteousness  of  the  righteous  shall  be  upon  him,  the  wicked- 


IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OP  IT.  191 

ness  of  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him."  Instances  we  have  of 
both  sorts.  (1)  In  the  imputation  of  sin,  when  the  person 
guilty  of  it,  is  so  judged  and  reckoned  a  sinner,  as  to  be  dealt 
with  accordingly.  This  imputation  Shimei  deprecated,  2  Sam. 
xix.  19,  He  said  to  the  king,  "  Let  not  my  Lord  impute  iniquity 
unto  me,"  arm  (the  word  used  in  the  expression  of  the  im- 
putation of  righteousness.  Gen.  xv.  6.)  "neither  do  thou  re- 
member what  thy  servant  did  perversely;  for  thy  servant  doth 
know  that  I  have  sinned.''  He  was  guilty,  and  acknowledged 
his  guilt,  but  deprecates  the  imputation  of  it,  in  such  a  sen- 
tence concerning  him,  as  his  sin  deserved.  So  Stephen  depre- 
cated the  imputation  of  sin  to  them  that  stoned  him,  whereof 
they  were  really  guilty,  Acts  vii.  60.  "  Lay  not  this  sin  to  their 
charge;"  impute  it  not  to  them.  As  on  the  other  side  Zecha- 
riah  the  son  of  Jehoiada,  Avho  died  in  the  same  cause,  and  the 
same  kind  of  death  with  Stephen,  prayed  that  the  sin  of  those 
who  slew  him  might  be  charged  on  them,  2  Chron.  xxiv.  22. 
Wherefore  to  impute  sin,  is  to  lay  ii  to  the  charge  of  any,  and 
to  deal  with  them  according  to  its  desert. 

To  impute  that  which  is  good  to  any,  is  to  judge  and  acknow- 
ledge it  so  to  be  theirs,  and  thereon  to  deal  with  them  in  whom 
it  is,  according  to  its  respect  to  the  law  of  God.  "  The  right- 
eousness of  the  righteous  shall  be  upon  him."  So  Jacob  pro- 
vided that  his  righteousness  should  answer  for  him.  Gen.  xxx. 
33.  And  we  have  an  instance  of  it  in  God's  dealing  with 
men,  Psal.  cvi.  3L  "Then  stood  up  Phineas  and  executed 
judgment,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness." 
Notwithstanding  it  seemed  that  he  had  not  sufficient  warrant 
for  what  he  did,  yet  God  that  knew  his  heart,  and  what  guid- 
ance of  his  own  Spirit  he  was  under,  approved  his  act  as  right- 
eous, and  gave  him  a  reward  testifying  that  approbation. 

Concerning  this  imputation  it  must  be  observed,  that  what- 
ever is  our  own  antecedently  thereto,  which  is  an  act  of  God 
thereon,  can  never  be  imputed  to  us  for  any  thing  more  or  less 
than  what  it  is  really  in  itself  For  this  imputation  consists  of 
two  parts,  or  two  things  concur  thereto.  (1)  A  judgment  of  the 
thing  to  be  ours,  to  be  in  us,  or  to  belong  to  us.  (2)  A  will  of 
deahng  with  us,  or  an  actual  dealing  with  us,  according  to  it. 
Wherefore  in  the  imputation  of  any  thing  to  us,  which  is  ours, 
God  esteems  it  not  to  be  other  than  it  is.  He  does  not  esteem 
that  to  be  a  perfect  righteousness  which  is  imperfect;  so  to  do 
might  argue  either  a  mistake  of  the  thing  judged  on,  or  per- 
verseness  in  the  judgment  itself  upon  it.  Wherefore  if,  as  some 


192         IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OF  IT. 

say,  our  own  faith  and  obedience  are  imputed  to  us  for  right- 
eousness, seeing  they  are  imperfect,  they  must  be  imputed  to  us 
for  an  imperfect  righteousness,  and  not  for  that  which  is  perfect. 
For  that  judgment  of  God  which  is  according  to  truth,  is  in  this 
imputation.  And  the  imputation  of  an  imperfect  righteous- 
ness to  us,  esteeming  it  only  as  such,  will  stand  us  in  little  stead 
in  this  matter.  And  the  acceptilation  which  some  plead,  (tra- 
ducing a  fiction  in  human  laws,  to  interpret  the  mystery  of  the 
gospel)  not  only  overthrows  all  imputation,  but  the  satisfaction 
and  merit  of  Christ  also.  And  it  must  be  observed,  that  this 
imputation  is  a  mere  act  of  justice,  without  any  mixture  of 
grace,  as  the  Apostle  declares,  Rom.  xi.  6.  For  it  consists  of 
these  two  parts,  (1)  An  acknowledging  and  judging  that  to  be 
in  us  which  is  truly  so.  (2)  A  will  of  dealing  with  us  accord- 
ing to  it;  both  which  are  acts  of  justice. 

The  imputation  to  us  of  that  which  is  not  our  own  antece- 
dently to  that  imputation,  at  least  not  in  the  same  manner  as  it 
is  afterwards,  is  various  also,  as  to  the  grounds  and  causes  that 
it  proceeds  upon.  Only  it  must  be  observed,  that  no  imputa- 
tion of  this  kind,  is  to  account  them,  to  whom  any  thing  is  im- 
puted, to  have  done  the  things  themselves  which  are  imputed  to 
them.  That  were  not  to  impute  but  to  err  in  judgment,  and 
indeed  utterly  to  overthrow  tlie  whole  nature  of  gracious  im- 
putation. But  it  is  to  make  that  to  be  ours  by  imputation, 
which  was  not  ours  before,  to  all  ends  and  purposes  whereto 
it  would  have  served,  if  it  had  been  our  own,  without  any 
such  imputation. 

It  is  therefore  a  manifest  mistake  of  their  own  which  some 
make  the  ground  of  a  charge  on  the  doctrine  of  imputation. 
For  they  say,  if  our  sins  were  imputed  to  Christ,  then  must  he 
be  esteemed  to  have  done  what  we  have  done  amiss,  and  so 
be  the  greatest  sinner  that  ever  was;  and  on  the  other  side,  if 
his  righteousness  be  imputed  to  us,  then  are  we  esteemed  to 
have  done  what  he  did,  and  so  to  stand  in  no  need  of  the  par- 
don of  sin.  But  this  is  contrary  to  the  natiu'e  of  imputation, 
which  proceeds  on  no  such  judgment,  but  on  the  contrary,  that 
we  ourselves  have  done  nothing  of  what  is  imputed  to  us;  nor 
Christ  any  thing  of  what  was  imputed  to  him. 

To  declare  more  distinctly  the  nature  of  this  imputation,  I 
shall  consider  the  several  kinds  of  it,  or  rather  the  several 
grounds  whence  it  proceeds.  For  this  imputation  to  us,  of  what 
is  not  our  own  antecedent  to  that  imputation,  may  be  either, 
(1)  Exjustitia,ov  (2)  Exvoluntaria  spo?isiojie,  or  (3)  Ex  in- 


IMPUTATION,    AND    THE    NATURE    OF    IT.  193 

jiiria,  or  (4)  Ex  gratia;  all  which  shall  be  exemplified.  I  do 
not  place  them  thus  distinctly,  as  if  they  might  not  some  of 
them  concur  in  the  same  imputation,  which  I  shall  manifest 
that  they  do.  But  I  shall  refer  the  several  kinds  of  imputation, 
to  that  which  is  the  next  cause  of  every  one. 

1.  Things  that  are  not  our  own  origmally,  personally,  inhe- 
rently, may  yet  be  imputed  to  us  ex  Jiislitia,  by  the  rule  of 
righteousness.  And  this  may  be  done  upon  a  double  relation 
10  those  whose  they  are;  (1)  federal,  (2)  natural.  (1)  Things 
done  by  one  may  be  imputed  to  olhers, propter  relationem  Jbsd- 
eraiem,  hecause  of  a  covenant  relation  between  them.  So  the 
sin  of  Adam  was,  and  is  imputed  to  all  his  posterity,  as  we 
shall  afterwards  more  fully  declare.  And  the  ground  hereof  is, 
that  we  stood  all  in  the  same  covenant  with  him,  who  was  our 
head  and  representative  therein.  The  corruption  and  deprava- 
tion of  nature  which  we  derive  from  Adam  is  imputed  to  us, 
with  the  first  kind  of  imputation,  namely,  of  that  which  is  ours 
antecedently  to  that  imputation.  But  his  actual  sin  is  imputed 
to  us,  as  that  which  becomes  ours  by  that  imputation,  which 
before  it  was  not.  Hence  says  Bellarmine  himself;  jjeccatiim 
^Uami  ita  posteris  omnibus  irnputatur,  ac  si  o?nnes  idem 
peccatuni patravissent.  DeAmiss.  Grat.lib.  4.  cap  10.  "The 
sin  of  Adam  is  so  imputed  to  all  his  posterity,  as  if  they  had  all 
committed  the  same  sin."  And  he  gives  us  herein  the  true 
nature  of  imputation,  which  he  fiercely  disputes  against  in  his 
books  of  justification.  For  the  imputation  of  that  sin  to  us,  as 
if  we  had  committed  it,  which  he  acknowledges,  includes  both 
a  transcription  of  that  sin  to  us,  and  a  dealing  with  us,  as  if  we 
had  committed  it;  which  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle,  Rom.  5. 

2.  There  is  an  imputation  of  sin  to  olhers,  ex  justitia  prop- 
ter relationem  naturalem,  on  account  of  a  natural  relation 
between  them,  and  those  who  had  actually  contracted  the  guilt 
of  it.  But  this  is  so  only  with  respect  to  some  outward  tempo- 
rary effects  of  it.  So  God  speaks  concerning  the  children  of 
the  rebellious  Israelites  in  the  wilderness.  "  Your  children  shall 
wander  in  the  wilderness  forty  years,  and  bear  your  whore- 
doms," Numb.  xiv.  33.  Your  sin  shall  be  so  far  imputed  to 
your  children,  because  of  their  relation  to  you,  and  your  inter- 
est in  them,  as  that  they  shall  suffer  for  them  in  an  afflictive 
condition  in  the  wilderness.  And  this  was  just,  because  of  the 
relation  between  them;  as  the  same  procedure  of  divine  justice 
is  frequently  declared  in  other  places  of  the  Scripture.  So  where 
there  is  a  due  foundation  of  it,  imputation  is  an  act  of  justice, 

17 


194         IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OF  IT. 

3.  Imputation  may  justly  ensue,  ex  voluntaria  sponsione; 
when  one  freely  and  willingly  undertakes  to  answer  for  another. 
An  illustrious  instance  hereof  we  have  in  that  passage  of  the 
Apostle  to  Philemon,  in  the  behalf  of  Onesimus;  ver.  18.  "If 
he  hath  wronged  thee,  or  oweth  thee  aught,  tovto  ^loi  tXKo'^n, 
Impute  it  to  me,"  put  it  on  my  account.  He  supposes  that 
Philemon  might  have  a  double  action  against  Onesimus;  (1) 
Injuriarum^  of  wrongs;  it  Se  tu  '^Stxt^ss  a,  if  he  has  dealt  un- 
justly with  thee  or  by  thee,  if  he  has  so  wronged  thee  as  to 
render  himself  obnoxious  to  punishment;  (2)  Damni,  or  of 
loss;  -^  o^iLXii/iihe  owes  thee  aught,  be  a  debtor  to  thee,  which 
made  him  liable  to  payment  or  restitution.  In  this  state  the 
Apostle  interposes  himself  by  a  voluntary  sponsion,  to  under- 
take for  Onesimus.  "  I  Paul  have  written  it  with  my  own  hand, 
lyfe.  arcottaa,  I  will  auswer  for  the  whole."  And  this  he  did  by 
the  transcription  of  both  the  debts  of  Onesimus  to  himself;  for 
the  crime  was  of  that  nature  as  might  It  taken  away  by  com- 
purgation, being  not  capital.  And  the  imputation  of  them  to 
him,  was  made  just,  by  his  voluntary  undertaking  of  them. 
Account  me,  says  he,  the  person  that  has  done  these  things; 
and  I  will  make  satisfaction,  so  that  nothing  be  charged  on 
Onesimus.  So  Judah  voluntarily  undertook  to  Jacob,  for  the 
safety  of  Benjamin,  and  obliged  himself  to  perpetual  guilt  in 
case  of  failure;  Gen.  xliii.  9.  "I  will  be  surety  for  him,  of  my 
hands  shalt  thou  require  him,  if  I  bring  him  not  to  thee,  and 
set  him  before  thee,  TiNam  I  will  sin,  or  be  a  sinner  before  thee 
always;"  be  guilty,  and  as  we  say,  bear  the  blame.  So  he  ex- 
presses himself  again  to  Joseph,  Gen.  xliv.  32.  It  seems  this 
is  the  nature  and  office  of  a  surety;  what  he  undertakes  for,  is 
justly  to  be  required  at  his  hand,  as  if  he  had  been  originally 
and  personally  concerned  in  it.  And  this  voluntary  sponsion 
was  one  ground  of  the  imputation  of  our  sin  to  Christ.  He 
took  on  him  the  person  of  the  whole  church  that  had  sinned,  to 
answer  for  what  they  had  done  against  God  and  the  law. 
Hence  that  imputation  vjd^s  fundament aliter  ex  coinpacto,  ex 
voluntaria  sponsione,  it  had  its  foundation  in  his  voluntary 
undertaking.     But  on  supposition  hereof;  it  was  actually  ex 

justitia,  it  being  righteous  that  he  should  answer  for,  and  make 
good  what  he  had  so  undertaken;  the  glory  of  God's  righteous- 
ness and  holiness  being  greatly  concerned  herein. 

4.  There  is  an  imputation,  ex  injuria;  when  that  is  laid  to 
the  charge  of  any,  whereof  lie  is  not  guilty:  so  Bathsheba  says 
to  David;  "  it  shall  come  to  pass  when  my  Lord  the  King 


IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OP  IT.  195 

shall  sleep  with  his  fathers,  that  I  and  my  son  Solomon  shall 
be  a^'Non  sinners;"  1  Kings  i.  21,  shall  be  dealt  with  as  offenders, 
as  guilty  persons,  have  sin  imputed  to  us,  on  one  pretence  or 
other  to  our  destructipn.  We  shall  be  sinners;  be  esteemed  so, 
and  be  dealt  withal 'accordingly.  And  we  may  see  that  in  the 
phrase  of  the  Scripture,  the  denomination  of  sinners  follows  the 
imputation,  as  well  as  the  inhesion  of  sin;  which  will  give  light 
to  that  place  of  the  Apostle,  "he  was  made  sin  for  us,"  2  Cor. 
V.  21.  This  kind  of  imputation  has  no  place  in  the  judgment  of 
God.  It  is  far  from  him,  that  the  righteous  should  be  as  the 
wicked. 

5,  There  is  an  imputation,  ex  niera  gratia,  of  mere  grace 
and  favour.  And  this  is,  when  that  which  antecedently  to  this 
imputation  was  no  way  ours,  not  inherent  in  us,  not  performed 
by  us,  which  we  had  no  right  or  title  to,  is  granted  to  us,  made 
ours,  so  as  that  we  are  judged  of,  and  dealt  with  according  to 
it.  This  is  that  imputation  in  both  branches  of  it,  negative  in 
the  non-imputation  of  sin,  and  positive  in  the  imputation  of 
righteousness,  which  the  Apostle  so  vehemently  pleads  for,  and 
so  frequently  asserts,  Rom.  iv.  For  he  both  affirms  the  thing 
itself,  and  declares  that  it  is  of  mere  grace,  without  respect  to  any 
thing  within  ourselves.  And  if  this  kind  of  imputation  cannot 
be  fully  exemplified  in  any  other  instance,  but  this  alone, 
whereof  we  treat,  it  is  because  the  foundation  of  it  in  the  me- 
diation of  Christ  is  singular,  and  that  which  there  is  nothing  to 
parallel  in  any  other  case  among  men. 

From  what  has  been  discoursed  concerning  the  nature  and 
grounds  of  imputation,  sundry  things  are  made  evident,  which 
contribute  much  light  to  the  truth  which  we  plead  for,  at  least 
to  the  right  understanding  and  stating  of  the  matter  under 
debate.     As 

1.  The  difference  is  plain  between  the  imputation  of  any 
works  of  our  own  to  us,  and  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith  without  works.  For  the  imputation  of  works 
to  us,  be  they  what  they  will,  be  it  faith  itself  as  a  work  of 
obedience  in  us,  is  the  imputation  of  that  which  was  ours,  be- 
fore such  imputation.  But  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith,  or  the  righteousness  of  God  which  is  by  faith,  is  the 
imputation  of  that  which  is  made  ours  by  virtue  of  that  impu- 
tation. And  these  two  imputations  differ  in  their  whole  kind. 
The  one  is  a  judging  of  that  to  be  in  us,  which  indeed  is  so, 
and  is  ours,  before  that  judgment  be  passed  concerning  it;  the 
other   is  a   communication  of  that  to  us,  which  before  was 


196 


IMPUTATIO>'^,    AND    THE    NATURE    OF    IT. 


not  ours.  And  no  man  can  make  sense  of  the  Apostle's  dis- 
course, that  is,  he  cannot  understand  any  thing  of  it,  if  he  ac- 
knowledge not  that  the  righteousness  he  treats  of  is  made  ours 
by  imputation,  and  was  not  ours,  antecedently  thereto. 

2.  The  imputation  of  works,  of  what  so'rt  soever  they  be,  of 
faith  itself  as  a  work,  and  all  the  obedience  of  faith,  is  ex  jus- 
titia,  and  not  ex  gratia;  of  right  and  not  of  grace.  However 
the  bestowing  of  faith  on  us,  and  the  working  of  obedience  in 
us,  may  be  of  grace,  yet  the  imputation  of  them  to  us,  as 
in  us,  and  as  ours,  is  an  act  of  justice.  For  this  imputation  as 
was  shown,  is  nothing  but  a  judgment  that  such  and  such 
things  are  in  us,  or  are  ours,  which  truly  and  really  are  so, 
with  a  treating  of  us  according  to  them.  This  is  an  act  of 
justice,  as  it  appears  in  the  description  given  of  that  imputa- 
tion. But  the  imputation  of  righteousness  mentioned  by  the 
Apostle  is  as  to  us  ex  mera  gratia,  of  mere  grace,  as  he  folly 
declares,  Scopyav  tvi  ;toptT't  aviov.  And  moreover  he  declares, 
that  these  two  sorts  of  imputation  are  inconsistent  and  not  ca- 
pable of  any  composition,  so  that  any  thing  should  be  partly 
of  the  one,  and  partly  of  the  other,  Rom.  xi.  6.  "If  by  grace, 
then  it  is  no  more  of  works,  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace; 
but  if  it  be  of  works,  then  it  is  no  more  grace;  otherwise  work 
is  no  more  work."  For  instance,  if  faith  itself  as  a  work  of 
ours  be  imputed  to  us,  it  being  ours  antecedently  to  that  impu- 
tation, it  is  but  an  acknowledgment  of  it  to  be  in  us  and  ours, 
with  an  ascription  of  it  to  us,  for  what  it  is.  For  the  ascrip- 
tion of  any  thing  to  us  for  what  it  is  not,  is  not  imputation  but 
mistake.  But  this  is  an  imputation  ex  jiistitiu,  of  works ; 
and  so  that  which  is  of  mere  grace,  can  have  no  place,  by  the 
Apostle's  rule.  So  the  imputation  to  us  of  what  is  in  us,  is 
exclusive  of  grace,  in  the  Apostle's  sense.  And  on  the  other 
hand,  if  the  righteousness  of  Christ  be  imputed  to  us,  it  must 
be  ex  mera  gratia;  of  mere  grace;  for  that  is  imputed  to  us, 
which  was  not  ours,  antecedently  to  that  imputation,  and  so 
is  communicated  to  us  thereby.  And  here  is  no  place  for 
works,  nor  for  any  pretence  of  them.  In  the  one  way  the  foim- 
dation  of  imputation  is  in  ourselves,  in  the  other  it  is  in  another, 
which  are  irreconcilable. 

3.  Herein  both  these  kinds  of  imputation  agree.  Namely^ 
in  that  whatever  is  imputed  to  us,  it  is  imputed  for  what  it  is, 
and  not  for  what  it  is  not.  If  it  be  a  perfect  righteousness  that 
is  imputed  to  us,  so  it  is  esteemed  and  judged  to  be,  and  ac- 
cordingly are  we  to  be  dealt  with,  even  as  those  who  have  a 


IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OF  IT.         197 

perfect  righteousness.  And  if  that  which  is  imputed  as  right- 
eousness to  us  be  imperfect,  or  imperfectly  so,  then  as  such 
must  it  be  judged  when  it  is  imputed;  and  we  must  be  dealt 
with  as  those  which  have  such  an  imperfect  righteousness,  and 
no  otherwise.  And  therefore  whereas  our  inherent  righteous- 
ness is  imperfect,  (they  are  to  be  pitied  or  despised,  not  to  be 
contended  with,  that  are  otherwise  minded)  if  that  be  imputed 
to  us,  we  cannot  be  accepted  on  the  account  thereof  as  perfectly 
righteous,  without  an  error  in  judgment. 

4.  Hence  the  true  nature  of  that  imputation  which  we  plead 
for  (which  so  many  cannot  or  will  not  understand)  is  manifest, 
and  that  both  negatively  and  positively.  For  (1)  negatively; 
(1)  It  is  not  a  judging  or  esteeming  of  them  to  be  righteous 
who  truly  and  really  are  not  so.  Such  a  judgment  is  not  re- 
ducible to  any  of  the  grounds  of  imputation  before  mentioned. 
It  has  the  nature  of  that  which  is  ex  injuria,  or  a  false  charge, 
only  it  difl^rs  materially  from  it.  For  that  respects  evil,  this 
that  which  is  good.  And  therefore  the  clamours  of  the  Papists 
and  others  are  mere  effects  of  ignorance  or  malice,  that  we 
affirm  God  to  esteem  them  to  be  righteous,  who  are  wicked, 
sinful  and  polluted.  But  this  falls  heavily  on  them  who  main- 
tain that  we  are  justified  before  God  by  our  own  inherent  right- 
eousness; for  then  a  man  is  judged  righteous,  who  indeed  is 
not  so.  For  he  who  is  not  perfectly  righteous,  cannot  be  right- 
eous in  the  sight  of  God  unto  justification.  (2)  It  is  not  a 
naked  pronunciation  or  declaration  of  any  one  to  be  righteous, 
without  a  just  and  sutficient  foundation  for  the  judgment  of 
God  declared  therein.  God  declares  no  man  to  be  righteous 
but  him  who  is  so;  the  whole  question  being,  how  he  comes  so 
to  be.  (3)  It  is  not  the  transmission  or  transfusion  of  the  right- 
eousness of  another  into  them  that  are  to  be  justified,  that  they 
should  become  perfectly  and  inherently  righteous  thereby. 
For  it  is  impossible  that  the  righteousness  of  one  should  be 
transfused  into  another,  to  become  his  subjectively  and  inhe- 
rently. But  it  is  a  great  mistake  on  the  other  hand,  to  say  that 
therefore  the  righteousness  of  one  can  in  no  way  be  made  the 
righteousness  of  another,  which  is  to  deny  all  imputation. 

Wherefore  (2)  positively;  This  imputation  is  an  act  of  God 
ex  mera  gratia,  of  his  mere  love  and  grace,  whereby  on  the 
consideration  of  the  mediation  of  Christ,  he  makes  an  effectual 
grant  and  donation  of  a  true,  real,  perfect  righteousness,  even 
that  of  Christ  himself  to  all  that  believe,  and  accounting  it  as 
theirs,  on  his  own  gracious  act,  both  absolves  them  from  sin 
and  grants  them  right  and  title  to  eternal  life.    Hence, 

17* 


198  I5IPUTATI0N,    AND    THE    NATURE    OF    IT. 

(4.)  In  this  imputation,  the  thing  itself  is  first  imputed  to  us, 
and  not  any  of  the  effects  of  it,  but  they  are  made  ours  by  vir- 
tue of  that  imputation.  To  say  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
that  is,  his  obedience  and  sufferings  are  imputed  to  us  only  as 
to  their  effects,  is  to  say  that  we  have  the  benefit  of  them,  and 
no  more;  but  imputation  itself  is  denied.  So  say  the  Socinians, 
but  they  know  well  enough,  and  ingenuously  grant,  that  they 
overthrow  all  true  real  imputation  thereby.  Schlictingius  says,* 
-'  In  order  that  we  be  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  it  is 
not  necessary  that  his  righteousness  be  made  ours.  It  is  suffi- 
cient that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  be  the  cause  of  our  justi- 
fication. We  grant  you  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  our 
righteousness,  in  as  far  as  it  redounds  to  our  benefit  and  right- 
eousness; but  you  understand  it  to  be  properly  ours,  that  is, 
attributed  and  ascribed  to  us."  And  it  is  not  pleasing  to  see 
some  among  ourselves  with  so  great  confidence  take  up  the 
sense  and  words  of  these  men  in  their  disputations  against  the 
Protestant  doctrine  in  this  cause,  that  is,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

That  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us,  as  to  its 
effects,  has  this  sound  sense  in  it;  namely,  that  the  effects  of  it 
are  made  ours,  by  reason  of  that  imputation.  It  is  so  imputed, 
so  reckoned  to  us  of  God,  as  that  he  really  communicates  all 
the  effects  of  it  to  us.  But  to  say  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
is  not  imputed  to  us,  only  its  effects  are  so,  is  really  to  overthrow 
all  imputation.  For  (as  we  shall  see)  the  effects  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  cannot  be  said  properly  to  be  imputed  to  us;  and  if 
his  righteousness  itself  be  not  so,  imputation  has  no  place  herein, 
nor  can  it  be  understood  why  the  Apostle  should  so  frequently 
assert  it  as  he  does,  Rom.  iv.  And  therefore  the  Socinians  who 
expressly  oppose  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
and  plead  for  a  participation  of  its  effects  or  benefits  only, 
wisely  deny  any  such  kind  of  righteousness  of  Christ,  namely, 
of  satisfaction  and  merit,  (or  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
as  wrought  by  him,  was  either  satisfactory  or  meritorious)  as 
alone  may  be  imputed  to  us.  For  it  will  readily  be  granted, 
that  what  alone  they  allow  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  con- 
sist in,  cannot  be  imputed  to  us,  whatever  benefit  we  may  have 

*  Nee  eniin  ut  per  Christi  justitiam  justificemur,  opus  est  ut  illius  justitia  nostra 
fiat  justitia;  sed  sufficit  ut  Christi  justitia  sit  causa  nostrne  Justificationis  ;  et  hac- 
tenus  possumus  tibi  concedere,  Christi  justitiam  esse  nostram  justitiam,  quatenus 
nostrum  in  bonum  justitiamque  redundat;  verum  tu  proprie  nostram,  id  est,  nobis 
attributam  ascriptamque  inteliigis.  Disp.  pro.  Socin.  ad  Meisner.  pag.  250. 


IMPUTATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  OF  IT.  199 

by  it.  But  I  do  not  understand  how  those  who  grant  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  to  consist  principally  in  his  satisfaction  for  us 
or  in  our  stead,  can  conceive  of  an  imputation  of  the  effects  of  it 
to  us,  without  an  imputation  of  the  thing  itself  Seeing  it  is  for 
that  as  made  ours,  that  we  partake  of  the  benefits  of  it.  But 
from  the  description  of  imputation  and  the  instances  of  it.  it  ap- 
pears that  there  can  be  no  imputation  of  any  thing,  unless  the 
thing  itself  be  imputed,  nor  any  participation  of  the  effects  of 
any  thing,  but  what  is  grounded  on  the  imputation  of  the  thing 
itself.  Wherefore  in  our  particular  case,  no  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  allowed,  unless  we  grant  itself  to  be 
imputed;  nor  can  we  have  any  participation  of  the  effects  of  it, 
but  on  the  supposition  and  foundation  of  that  imputation.  The 
impertinent  cavils  that  some  of  late  have  collected  from  the 
Papists  and  Socinians,  that  if  it  be  so,  then  are  we  as  righteous 
as  Christ  himself,  that  we  have  redeemed  the  world,  and  satis- 
fied for  the  sins  of  others,  that  the  pardon  of  sin  is  impossible, 
and  personal  righteousness  needless,  shall  afterwards  be  spoken 
to,  so  far  as  they  deserve. 

All  that  we  now  aim  to  demonstrate,  is  only,  that  either  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  itself  is  imputed  to  us,  or  there  is  no  im- 
putation in  the  matter  of  our  justification,  which  whether  there 
be  or  no,  is  another  question  afterwards  to  be  spoken  to.  For 
as  was  said,  the  effects  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  cannot  be 
said  properly  to  be  imputed  tons.  For  instance,  pardon  of  sin 
is  a  great  etfect  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  Our  sins  are 
pardoned  on  the  account  thereof.  God  for  Christ's  sake  forgives 
lis  all  our  sins.  But  the  pardon  of  sin  cannot  be  said  to  be  im- 
puted to  us,  nor  is  so.  Adoption,  justification,  peace  with  God, 
all  grace  and  glory,  are  effects  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 
But  that  these  things  are  not  imputed  to  us,  nor  can  be  so,  is 
evident  from  their  nature.  But  we  are  made  partakers  of  them 
all,  upon  the  account  of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to  us,  and  no  otherwise. 

Thus  much  may  suffice  to  be  spoken  of  the  nature  of  impu- 
tation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ;  the  grounds,  reasons,  and 
causes  whereof,  we  shall  in  the  next  place  inquire  into.  And  I 
doubt  not  but  we  shall  find  in  our  inquiry,  that  it  is  no  such 
figment,  as  some  ignorant  of  these  things  imagine,  but  on  the 
contrary,  an  important  truth  closely  connected  with  the  most 
fundamental  principles  of  the  mystery  of  the  gospel,  and  insep- 
arable from  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus. 


200  IMrUTATION    OP"    THE    SINS    OP 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

IMPUTATION  OF  THE  SINS  OF  THE  CHURCH  TO  CHRIST.  GROUNDS  OF  IT. 
THE  NATURE  OF  HIS  SURETYSHIP.  CAUSES  OF  THE  NEW  COVENANT. 
CHRIST  AND  THE  CHURCH  ONE  MYSTICAL  PERSON.  CONSEQUENCES 
THEREOF. 

Those  who  believe  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
to  beUevers,  for  the  justification  of  hfe,  also  unanimously  pro- 
fess, that  the  sins  of  all  believers  were  imputed  to  Christ.  And 
this  they  do  on  many  testimonies  of  the  Scripture  directly  wit- 
nessing thereto,  some  whereof  shall  be  pleaded  and  vindicated 
afterwards.  At  present  we  are  only  on  the  consideration  of  the 
general  notion  of  these  things,  and  the  declaration  of  the  na- 
ture of  what  shall  be  proved  afterwards.  And  in  the  first  place 
we  shall  inquire  into  the  foundation  of  this  dispensation  of  God, 
and  the  equity  of  it,  or  the  grounds  whereinto  it  is  resolved, 
without  an  understanding  whereof,  the  thing  itself  cannot  be 
well  apprehended. 

The  principal  foundation  hereof  is,  that  Christ  and  the  Church 
in  this  design,  were  one  mystical  person,  which  state  they  ac- 
tually coalesce  in,  through  the  uniting  efficacy  of  tlie  Holy  Spi- 
rit. He  is  the  head,  and  believers  are  the  members  of  that  one 
person,  as  the  Apostle  declares,  1  Cor,  xii.  12,  13.  Hence  as 
what  he  did  is  imputed  to  them,  as  if  done  by  them,  so  what 
they  deserved  on  the  account  of  sin  was  charged  upon  him.  So 
is  it  expressed  by  a  learned  prelate;  "He  sustained  our  cause, 
who  had  united  our  flesh  to  himself,  and  thus,  being  joined  to 
us  by  the  closest  bond,  and  made  one  with  us,  what  was  ours, 
he  made  to  be  his  own."*  And  again,  "  what  wonder,  if  con- 
stituted in  our  person,  and  clothed  with  our  flesh,"  &c.t  The 
ancients  speak  to  the  same  purpose.  "  For  this  reason,  the  di- 
vine power  united  itself  with  human  weakness,  that  while  God 
makes  these  things  which  are  ours  to  be  his  own,  he  might  make 
those  things  which  are  his  to  be  ours."4:  And  also,  "  The  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  our  head,  transforming  into  himself  all  the  mem- 

'^  Nostram  causam  snstincbat,  qui  nostram  sibi  carnem  aduniverat,  et  ita  nobis 
arctissimo  vinculo  conjunctus,  et  huSnc,  quae  erant  nostra  fecit  sua. 

f  Quid  mirum  si  in  nostra  persona  constitutus,  nostram  carnem  indutus,  &c. — 
Montacut.  Origin.  Ecclesiast. 

t  Leo.  Sorm.  17.  Ideo  so  humanoe  jnfirmitati  virtus  divina  conscruit,  ut  dnni 
Deus  sua  i'acit  esse  quaj  nostra  sunt,  nostra  faceret  esse  qua?  sua  sunt. 


THE    CHURCH    TO    CHRIST.  -        201 

bers  of  his  body,  uttered  that  exclamation,  in  his  agony  on  the 
cross,  in  the  voice  of  his  redeemed,  which  he  had  formerly 
used  in  the  Psalm."*  And  so  speaks  Augustine  to  the  same 
purpose,!  "We  hear  the  voice  of  the  body  from  the  mouth  of 
the  head.  The  church  suffered  in  him,  when  he  suffered  for  the 
church;  as  he  suffers  in  the  church,  when  the  church  suffers  for 
him.  For  as  we  have  heard  the  voice  of  the  church  in  Christ  suf- 
fering,'My  God,  my  Lord,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?  look  upon 
me!'  so  we  have  heard  the  voice  of  Christ  in  the  church  sutfer- 
ing,  *  Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou  me!"'  But  we  may 
yet  look  a  little  backward  and  further  into  the  sense  of  the  an- 
cient church  herein.  Chj'istus,  saith  Irengeus,  omiies  Gentes 
exinde  ah  Adam  dispersas,  et  genera tio7ieni  hominum  in  se- 
met  ipso  recapitulatus  est;  unde  a  Paulo  Typus  futuri  dic- 
tus  est  ipse  Adam;  lib.  3.  cap.  33.  And  again,  Recapitulans 
universum  homimim.  genus  in  se  ab  initio  usque  ad  finem, 
recapitulatus  est  et  mortem  ejus.  In  this  of  Recapitulation 
there  is  no  doubt  but  he  had  respect  to  the  ai/axj^axatwutj,  men- 
tioned Ephes.  i.  10.  And  it  may  be  this  was  that  which  Ori- 
^e\\  intended  enigmatically,  by  saying  "  the  soul  of  the  first 
Adam  was  the  soul  of  Christ,"  as  it  is  charged  on  him.  And 
Cyprian,  Epist.  63,  on  bearing  about  the  administration  of  the 
sacred  eucharist;  nos  om,nes  portabat  Christus;  qui  et  peccata 
nostra  portabat.  "  He  bare  us,"  or  suffered  in  our  person, 
"  when  he  bare  our  sins."  Whence  Athanasius  affirms  of  the 
voice  he  used  on  the  cross,  ovx  avto^  o  xnptoj;  uxko,  -yji-iiii  tv  ixuvi^ 
rtaaxov-ti^  fjfisv,  "  we  Suffered  in  him."  Eusebius  speaks  many 
things  to  this  purpose.  Demonstrat.  Evangel,  lib.  10.  cap.  1. 
Expounding  those  words  of  the  Psalmist,  "heal  my  soul,  for," 
eras  he  would  read  them,  ?/ "  I  have  sinned  against  thee;" 
and  applying  them  to  our  Saviour  in  his  sufferings,  he  says 

thus,  irctibav  fa^  '^jx.Btspa;  xoivortoiit,  si;  iavfov  auttp-ftaj;  "  becaUSC  he 

took  of  our  sins  to  himself;  communicated  our  sins  to  himself," 
making  them  his  own;  for  so  he  adds,  oti,  ta?  vnxstspai  a/iapi'tos 
£|otx£tot7t£i/o5,  "making  our  sins  his  own."  And  hecause  in  his 
following  words  he  fully  expresses  what  I  design  to  prove,  I 
shall  transcribe  them  at  large.J     ''  How  then  did  he  make  our 

*  Sermo.  16.  Caput  nostrum  Dominus  Jesus  Christus  omnia  in  se  corporis  sui 
membra  transformans,  quod  olim  in  Psalmo  eructaverat,  id  in  supplicio  crucis  sub 
redemptorum  suorum  voce  clamavit. 

t  Epist.  120.  ad  Honoratuni;  Audimus  vocem  corporis,  ex  ore  capitis;  Ecclesia 
in  iilo  patiebatur,  quando  pro  Ecclesia  patiebatur,  &c. 


202  IMPUTATION   OF    THE    SINS    OP 

sins  to  be  his  own,  and  how  did  he  bear  our  iniquities?  Is  it 
not  from  thence,  that  we  are  said  to  be  his  body,  as  the  Apos- 
tle speaks,  '  Ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members,  for  your 
part,  or  of  one  another;'  and  as  when  one  member  suffers,  all 
the  members  safter;  so  the  many  members  sinning  and  suffer- 
ing, he  according  to  the  laws  of  sympathy  in  the  same  body, 
(seeing  that  being  the  word  of  God,  he  would  take  the  form  of 
a  servant,  and  be  joined  to  the  common  habitation  of  us  all) 
took  the  sorrows  or  labours  of  the  suffering  members  on  him, 
and  made  all  their  infirmities  his  own,  and  according  to  the 
laws  of  humanity,  bare  our  sorrow  and  labour  for  us.  And  the 
Lamb  of  God  did  not  only  these  things  for  us,  but  he  under- 
went torments,  and  was  punished  for  us;  that  which  he  was 
no  ways  exposed  to  for  himself,  but  we  were  so  by  the  multi- 
tude of  our  sins;  and  thereby  he  became  the  cause  of  the  par- 
don of  our  sins;  namely,  because  he  underwent  death,  stripes, 
reproaches,  transferring  the  thing  which  we  had  deserved  to 
himself;  and  was  made  a  curse  for  us,  taking  to  himself  the 
curse  that  was  due  to  us;  for  what  was  he,  but  a  price  of 
redemption  for  our  souls?  In  our  person  therefore  the  oracle 
speaks, — whilst  freely  uniting  himself  to  us,  and  us  to  himself, 
and  making  our  (sins  or)  passions  his  own,  he  says,  'I  have 
said,  Lord  be  merciful  to  me,  heal  my  soul,  for  I  have  sinned 
against  thee.'" 

That  our  sins  were  transferred  to  Christ  and  made  his;  that 
thereon  he  underwent  the  punishment  that  was  due  to  us  for 
them;  and  that  the  ground  hereof,  whereinto  its  equity  is  re- 
solved, is  the  union  between  him  and  us,  is  fully  declared  in 
this  discourse.  So  says  the  learned  and  pathetical  author  of 
the  Homilies  on  Matthew  v.  in  the  works  of  Chrysostom, 
Horn.  54,  which  is  the  last  of  them.     In  came  sua  omneni 

yi  KcL^''  0,    a-atjuu.  auTou   iivsii  KeyojuiSa. ;  nxra.  tov   dTrofToXov   <t>>i(7dLVTct,   bjun;   'urn    crai/ui 

XpiO-roUy   KXI  (A'cKH   in  jJ-if^MZ  X.a.1  KdiH'   0   Tra.T'^iVTOi  iVO;  JUiKiV;,    <TVy.7tCt<TyH  TrOLVTa.  TO.  y.iK>i, 

itjTu  TTOKKm  juiKasv  Trmr^ovTaiv  x.st.1  ajua.pTo.vcvTm,  xa.i  olvtoq  kata  tou;  tih  (rii/uTa.6ua.c 
Xoyov;-,  \7n1Sr\7rif1  tvS'(,iino'i  ©ssi/  \oyo^  Iv  /uopc^yiv  ScvKcv  hst./ii:v,  x.ut  tu  >coi\a>  ttavtu^v  tffxav 
cumaty.a.Ti  cuvxidmAf^  tou;  tosv  7ra.7^cvra>v  /uihrn  Trcvouc  \ti  isLwrcv  u.vAKctfA^a.vii,  xm  tolc 
i^fAiTipxf  vdTov;  'iS'ta7roi»Txi,  K'M  rrctvTmv  ifjuu'v  vTripuhyu  km  iiTngTrcvn  hhto,  tov;  tuc  ^/Aav- 
dpeuTTtct;  vo/uou;.  ou  /uovov  J'e  tauto.  Trpa^ct;  a  ajuvo;  tou  Qicj,  dhkct  xn  vTnp  if^eev  xoXita-Sug 
x.xt  Ti/uci'ptAv  vTTo^^uv,  iiv  cLVTo;  fji.i)i  ouK  ufiiKilv,  aXK^  yifj.it;  TOU  TTKndou;  hiniv  TriTr'AH/jfASkn^ue- 
\u>v,  iijuiv  aiTtci  Tit;  T^f  ajUApTXjuuTtev  at^i^nui;  kslti^T);,  Sts  tov  uTTip  i/ucov  dvA.S'i^iifx.ac; 
Bavhtov,  /ucta-Ttya.;  ts  x.a.1  i0pii;,   hcli  uTi/xtA;  Yifjt.iv  i7ro<^itKc/Aiva;  \t;   duTOV  ^STa6f/?,   xa/ 

TXV  )\fA.l1  7rp0S-TiTtfl>lfAiV>IV  KATApAU    6'^'  iAUTOy  iXXUS-O.;,  yiVO/UiVO;  UTTif  YlfXCt^l  KATU^A.  KAt  Tl  yap 

akXo  a.VTt-\-v^ov  ;  J;o  ^xtriv  i^  ifjinpov  Trpoiranrov  to  Xoytov — So"T6  iiKOTce;  ivcev  iAVTOv   iifAiv, 

yjUA;  Ti  aUTOO  KAi  TO,    tlfAiTipA    TTAdu    ti'lOTTOlOUy.iVO;    ip>l7tV,    SyCD    IITTA,    KUpli  iKiMTCV   fAi,    tA'7At 

Tiiy  -\-u)(/iv  fjiov,  oTt  yijuapTov  <rot. 


THE    CHURCH    TO    CHRIST.  203 

carnem  siiscepit;  crucijixus,  omnem  carneni  crucijixit  in  se. 
He  speaks  of  the  church.  So  they  speak  often  others  of  them; 
that  "  he  bare  ns,"  that  "  he  took  us  with  him  on  the  cross," 
that  "  we  were  all  crucified  in  him;"  as  Prosper:  "He  is  not 
saved  by  the  cross  of  Christ,  who  is  not  crucified  in  Christ!" 
Resp.  ad  cap.  Gal.  cap.  9. 

This  then  I  say  is  the  foundation  of  the  imputation  of  the 
sins  of  the  church  to  Christ,  namely,  that  he  and  it  are  one  per- 
son, the  grounds  whereof  we  must  inquire  into. 

But  hereon  sundry  discourses  ensue,  and  various  inquiries 
are  made.  What  a  person  is,  in  what  sense,  and  how  many 
senses  that  word  may  be  used;  what  is  the  true  notion  of  it, 
what  is  a  natural  person,  what  a  legal,  civil,  or  political  person; 
in  the  explication  whereof  some  have  fallen  into  mistakes. 
And  if  we  should  enter  into  this  field,  we  need  not  fear  matter 
enough  of  debate  and  altercation.  But  I  must  needs  say,  that 
these  things  belong  not  to  our  present  occasion;  nor  is  the  union 
of  Christ  and  the  church  illustrated,  but  obscured  by  them. 
For  Christ  and  believers  are  neither  one  natural  person,  nor  a 
legal  or  political  person,  nor  any  such  person  as  the  laws,  cus- 
toms, or  usages  of  men  know  or  allow  of.  They  are  one  mys- 
tical person,  whereof  although  there  may  be  some  imperfect 
resemblances  found  in  natural  or  political  unions,  yet  the  union 
from  whence  that  denomination  is  taken  between  him  and  us, 
is  of  that  nature,  and  arises  from  such  reasons  and  causes,  as 
no  personal  union  among  men,  (or  the  union  of  many  persons) 
has  any  concern  in.  And  therefore  as  to  the  representation  of 
it  to  our  weak  understandings  unable  to  comprehend  the  depth 
of  heavenly  mysteries,  it  is  compared  to  unions  of  divers  kinds 
and  natures.  So  is  it  represented  by  that  of  man  and  wife;  not 
to  those  mutual  affections  which  give  them  only  a  moral  union, 
but  from  the  extraction  of  the  first  woman,  from  the  flesh  and 
bone  of  the  first  man,  and  the  institution  of  God  for  the  indi- 
vidual society  of  life  thereon.  This  the  Apostle  at  large  de- 
clares, Ephes.  V.  25 — 32.  Whence  he  concludes,  that  from  the 
union  thus  represented,  "  we  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his 
flesh  and  of  his  bones,"  or  have  such  a  relation  to  him,  as  Eve 
had  to  Adam,  when  she  was  made  of  his  flesh  and  bone;  and 
so  was  one  flesh  with  him.  So  also  it  is  compared  to  the  union 
of  the  head  and  members  of  the  same  natural  body,  1  Cor.  xii. 
12,  and  to  a  political  union  also  between  a  ruling  or  political 
head,  and  its  political  members;  but  never  exclusively  to  the 
union  of  a  natural  head,  and  its  members  comprised  in  the  same 


204  GROUNDS  OF  THE  IMPUTATION 

expression,  Ephes.  iv.  15;  Col.  ii.  19.  And  so  also  to  sundry 
things  in  nature,  as  a  vine  and  its  branches,  John  xv.  1 — 3. 
And  it  is  declared  by  the  relation  that  was  between  Adam  and 
his  posterity,  by  God's  institution  and  the  law  of  creation; 
Rom.  V.  12,  &c.  And  the  Holy  Ghost  by  representing  the  union 
that  is  between  Christ  and  believers,  by  such  a  variety  of  re- 
semblances, in  things  agreeing  only  in  the  common  or  genera! 
notion  of  union  on  various  grounds,  sufficiently  manifests  that 
it  is  not  of,  nor  can  be  reduced  to  any  one  kind  of  them.  And 
this  will  yet  be  made  more  evident  by  the  consideration  of  the 
causes  of  it,  and  the  grounds  whereto  it  is  resolved.  But 
whereas  it  would  require  much  time  and  diligence  to  handle 
them  at  large,  which  the  occasional  mention  of  them  here  will 
not  admit,  I  shall  only  briefly  refer  to  the  heads  of  them. 

1.  The  first  spring  or  cause  of  this  union,  and  of  all  the  other 
causes  of  it,  lies  in  that  eternal  compact  .that  was  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  concerning  the  recovery  and  salvation  of 
fallen  mankind.  Herein  among  other  things  as  the  effects 
thereof,  the  assumption  of  our  nature,  (the  foundation  of  this 
union)  was  designed.  The  nature  and  terms  of  this  compact, 
counsel,  and  agreement,  I  have  declared  elsewhere,  and  there- 
fore must  not  here  again  insist  upon  it.  But  the  relation  be- 
tween Christ  and  the  church,  proceeding  from  hence,  and  so 
being  an  effect  of  infinite  wisdom,  in  the  counsel  of  the  Father 
and  Son,  to  be  made  effectual  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  must  be  dis- 
tinguished from  all  other  unions  or  relations  whatever. 

2.  The  Lord  Christ  as  to  the  nature  which  he  was  to  assume, 
was  hereon  predestinated  to  grace  and  glory.  He  was  ^pofy- 
vcaefievos  " fore-ordaiued,"  predestinated,  ''before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  vv'orld;"  1  Pet.  i.  20.  That  is,  he  wassoas  to  his  office, 
so  to  all  the  grace  and  glory  required  thereto,  and  consequenE 
thereon.  All  the  grace  and  glory  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ, 
was  an  effect  of  free  divine  pre-ordination.  God  chose  it  from 
all  eternity,  to  a  participation  of  all  which  it  received  in  time. 
Neither  can  any  other  cause  of  the  glorious  exaltation  of  that 
portion  of  our  nature,  be  assigned. 

3.  This  grace  and  glory  whereto  he  was  pre-ordained,  was 
twofold.  (1)  That  which  was  peculiar  to  himself;  (2)  That 
which  was  to  be  communicated  by  and  through  him  to  the 
Church.  Of  the  first  sort  was  the  ;^agt5  tviuosi^s,  "  ihe  grace  of 
personal  union,^'  that  single  effect  of  divine  wisdom,  (whereof 
there  is  no  shadow  nor  resemblance  in  any  other  works  of  God, 
either  of  creation,  providence,  or  grace)  which  his  nature  was 


OF    THE    church's    SINS    TO    CHRIST.  205 

filled  with.  "  Full  of  grace  and  truth."  And  all  his  personal 
glory,  power,  authority,  and  majesty  in  his  exaltation  as  Medi- 
ator at  the  right  hand  of  God,  which  is  expressive  of  them  all,  be- 
long hereto.  These  things  were  peculiar  to  him,  and  all  of  them 
effects  of  his  eternal  predestination.  But  (2)  He  was  not  thus 
predestinated  absolutely,  but  also  with  respect  to  that  grace  and 
glory  which  in  him  and  by  him,  was  to  be  communicated  to  the 
church.     And  he  was  so, 

1.  As  the  pattern  and  exemplary  cause  of  our  predestination; 
for  we  are  "  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  the 
Son  of  God,  that  he  might  be  the  first-born  among  many  breth- 
ren," Rom.  viii.  29.  Hence  he  shall  even  "  change  our  vile 
body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,"  Phil, 
iii.  21 ;  that  "  when  he  appears,"  we  may  be  every  way  "  like 
him,"  1  John  iii.  2. 

2.  As  the  means  and  cause  of  communicating  all  grace  and 
glory  to  us.  For  we  are  "  chosen  in  him  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy,  and  predestinated 
to  the  adoption  of  children  by  him,"  Ephes.  i.  3 — 5.  He  was 
designed  as  the  only  procuring  cause  of  all  spiritual  blessings 
in  heavenly  things  to  those  who  are  chosen  in  him.  Wherefore, 

3.  He  was  thus  fore-ordained  as  the  head  of  the  Church,  it 
being  the  design  of  God  to  gather  all  things  into  a  head  in  him, 
Ephes.  i.  10. 

4.  All  the  elect  of  God  were  in  his  eternal  purpose  and  de- 
sign, and  in  the  everlasting  covenant  between  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  committed  to  him  to  be  delivered  from  sin,  the  law, 
and  death,  and  to  be  brought  to  the  enjoyment  of  God.  "  Thine 
they  were,  and  thou  gavest  them  to  me,"  John  xvii.  6.  Hence 
was  that  love  of  his  to  them,  wherewith  he  loved  them  and 
gave  himself  for  them,  antecedently  to  any  good  or  love  in 
them,  Ephes.  v.  25,26;  Gal.  ii.  20;  Rev.  i.  5,  6. 

5.  In  the  prosecution  of  this  design  of  God,  and  in  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  everlasting  covenant,  "in  the  fulness  of 
time  he  took  upon  him  our  nature,"  or  took  it  into  personal 
subsistence  with  himself.  The  especial  relation  that  ensued 
hereon  between  him  and  the  elect  children,  the  Apostle  de- 
clares at  large,  Heb.  ii.  10 — 17.  And  I  refer  the  reader  to  our 
exposition  of  that  place. 

6.  On  these  foundations  he  midertook  to  be  "  the  surety  of 
the  new  covenant,"  Heb.  vii.  22.  "Jesus  was  made  a  surety 
of  a  better  testament."  This  alone  of  all  the  fundamental  con- 
siderations of  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  I  shall  insist 

18 


206  NATURE    OF    CHRIST's    SURETYSHIP. 

upon,  OR  purpose  to  obviate  or  remove  some  mistakes  about 
the  nature  of  his  suretyship,  and  the  respect  of  it  to  the  cove- 
nant, whereof  he  was  the  surety.  And  I  shall  borrow  what  I 
shall  offer  hereon,  from  our  exposition  of  this  passage  of  the 
Apostle  on  the  seventh  chapter  of  this  Epistle  not  yet  published, 
with  very  little  variation  from  what  I  have  discoursed  on  that 
occasion,  without  the  least  respect  to,  or  prospect  of  any  treat- 
ing on  our  present  subject. 

The  word  iyyvoi,  is  no  where  found  in  the  Scripture,  but  in 
this  place  only.  But  the  advantage  which  some  would  make 
from  thence,  namely,  that  it  being  but  one  place  wherein  the 
Lord  Christ  is  called  a  surety,  it  is  not  of  much  force,  or  much 
to  be  insisted  on,  is  both  unreasonable  and  absurd.  For  (1) 
this  one  place  is  of  divine  revelation,  and  therefore  is  of  the 
same  authority  with  twenty  testimonies  to  the  same  purpose. 
One  divine  testimony  makes  our  faith  no  less  necessary,  and  no 
less  secures  it  from  being  deceived,  than  a  hundred. 

The  signification  of  the  word  is  known,  from  the  use  of  it, 
and  what  it  signifies  among  men,  that  no  question  can  be  made 
of  its  sense  and  importance,  though  it  be  but  once  used;  and 
this  on  any  occasion  removes  the  difficulty  and  danger,  tn^v 
arta.%  %Eyo^£viov,  of  expressions  but  once  used  in  Scripture.  (3) 
The  thing  itself  intended  is  so  fully  declared  by  the  Apostle  in 
this  place,  and  so  plentifully  taught  in  other  places  of  the 
Scripture,  that  the  single  use  of  this  word  may  add  light,  but 
can  be  no  prejudice  to  it. 

Something  may  be  spoken  to  the  signification  of  the  word 
tyyi^os  which  will  give  light  to  the  thing  intended  by  it.  Tvaxor 
is  Fb/a  manus,  the  palm  of  the  hand;  thence  is  fyytoj,  or  ilc 
to  yvaxov,  to  deliver  into  the  hand.  F.yyvrjffji  is  of  the  same 
signification.  Hence  being  a  surety  is  interpreted  by  striking 
the  hand,  Prov.  vi.  1.  "  My  son,  if  thou  be  surety  for  thy  friend, 
if  thou  hast  stricken  thy  hand,  with  a  stranger."  So  it  an- 
swers the  Hebrew  ^-^y  which  the  Lxx  render  fyytjaw,  Prov.  vi.  1: 
xvii.  18;  xx.  19;  and  by  Stsyyvaio,  Nehem.  v.  3.  ^nj?  originally 
signifies  to  77iingle,  or  a  mixture  of  any  things  or  persons. 
And  thence  from  the  conjunction  and  mixture  that  is  between 
a  surety  and  him  for  whom  he  is  a  surety,  whereby  they  coa- 
lesce into  one  person,  as  to  the  ends  of  that  suretyship,  it  is 
used  for  a  surety,  or  to  give  surety.  And  he  that  was,  or  did 
3ip  a  surety,  or  become  a  surety,  was  to  answer  for  him  for 
whom  he  was  so,  whatsoever  befel  him.  So  is  it  described. 
Gen.  xliii.  9,  in  the  words  of  Judah  to  his  father  Jacob,  con- 


NATURE    OF    CHRISt's    SURETYSHIP.  207 

cerning  Benjamin.  "I  will  be  surety  for  him;  of  my  hand 
shall  thou  require  him."  In  undertaking  to  be  surety  for  him, 
as  to  his  safety  and  preservation,  he  engages  himself  to  answer 
for  all  that  should  befal  him,  for  so  he  adds;  "  if  I  bring  him 
not  to  thee,  and  set  him  before  thee,  let  me  be  guilty  for  ever.'' 
And  on  this  ground  he  entreats  Joseph,  that  he  might  be  a  ser- 
vant and  a  bondman  in  Benjamin's  stead,  that  he  might  go 
free  and  return  to  his  father,  Gen.  xliv.  32,  33.  This  is  requir- 
ed to  such  a  surety,  that  he  undergo  and  answer  all  that  he 
for  whom  he  is  a  surety  is  liable  to,  whether  in  things  criminal 
or  civil,  so  far  as  the  suretyship  extends.  A  surety  is  an  under- 
taker for  another,  or  others,  who  thereon  is  justly  and  legally 
to  answer  what  is  due  to  them,  or  from  them.  Nor  is  the  word 
otherwise  used.  See  Job  xvii.  3;  Prov.  vi.  1;  xi.  15;  xvii.  11: 
XX.  16;  xxvii.  13.  So  Paul  became  a  surety  to  Philemon  for 
Onesimus.  Eyyujj  is  sponsio,  expromissio,  fidejussio;  an  under- 
taking or  giving  security  for  any  thing  or  person  to  another, 
whereon  an  agreement  ensued.  This  in  some  cases  was  by 
pledges,  or  an  earnest,  Isa.  xxxvi.  8.  "  Give  pledges,"  surety, 
hostages,  for  the  true  performance  of  condiiions.  Hence  is  pt 
appagwj/  a  pledge  or  earnest,  Eph.  i.  14.  Wherefore  iyyvo^  is 
sponsor,  fidejussor, prses,  one  that  voluntarily  takes  on  himseif 
the  cause  or  condition  of  another,  to  answer,  undergo,  or  pay 
what  he  is  liable  to,  or  to  see  it  done,  whereon  he  becomes 
justly  and  legally  obnoxious  to  performance;  in  this  sense  is 
the  word  here  used  by  the  Apostle,  for  it  has  no  other. 

In  our  present  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  this  suretyship  of 
Christ,  the  whole  will  be  resolved  into  this  one  question,  name- 
ly, whether  the  Lord  Christ  was  made  a  surety  only  on  the 
part  of  God  to  us,  to  assure  us,  that  the  promise  of  the  cove- 
nant on  his  part  should  be  accomplished;  or  also  and  principally 
an  undertaker  on  our  part,  for  the  performance  of  what  is  re- 
quired, if  not  of  us,  yet  with  respect  to  us,  that  the  promise 
may  be  accomplished.  The  first  of  these  is  vehemently  as- 
serted by  the  Socinians,  who  are  followed  by  Grotius  and 
Hammond  in  their  annotations  on  this  place. 

The  words  of  Schlictingius  are,  "  Jesus  is  called  the  surety 
of  the  covenant,  because,  on  the  part  of  God,  he  has  given  us 
an  assurance  that  God  will  fulfil  the  promises  of  the  covenant ; 
not  because  he  became  surety  for  us  to  God,  or  took  upon  him- 
self the  payment  of  our  debts.  For  Christ  was  not  sent  by  us, 
but  by  God,  in  whose  name  he  has  come  to  us,  made  a  coven- 
ant with  us,  and  engaged  that  its  promises  shall  be  fulfilled. 


208  NATURE    OF   CHRISt's    SURETYSHIP. 

And  therefore  he  is  not  called  simply  a  surety,  but  a  surety  of 
the  covenant.  Now  Christ  became  a  surety  for  the  truth  of 
the  Divine  covenant,  not  only  inasmuch  as  he  constantly  testi- 
fied by  his  words  that  it  should  be  firm  and  stable,  but  inas- 
much as  he  proved  the  truth  of  his  mission  by  the  indubitable 
evidence  of  facts — by  the  spotless  innocence  and  holiness  of 
his  life,  by  the  evidently  Divine  works,  which  he  performed, 
and  by  the  endurance  of  a  cruel  death,  to  which  he  submitted 
in  attestation  of  the  truth  of  his  doctrine."*  After  which  he 
subjoins  a  long  discourse  about  the  evidences  which  we  have 
of  the  veracity  of  Christ.  And  herein  we  have  a  brief  account 
of  their  whole  opinion  concerning  the  mediation  of  Christ. 
The  words  of  Grotius  are:  "  Christ  became  a  surety;  that  is  he 
has  given  as  an  assurance  of  the  promise,  not  only  by  his 
words  but  by  the  perpetual  sanctity  of  his  life,  by  the  death 
which  he  endured  for  that  end,  and  by  numerous  miracles;"t 
which  are  an  abridgment  of  the  discourse  of  Schlictingius.  To 
the  same  purpose  Dr.  Hammond  expounds  it,  that  he  was  a 
'•sponsor  or  surety  for  God,  to  the  confirmation  of  the  promises 
of  the  covenant." 

On  the  other  hand  the  generality  of  expositors,  ancient  and 
modern,  of  the  Roman  and  Protestant  churches,  on  the  place 
affirm,  that  the  Lord  Christ  as  the  surety  of  the  covenant,  was 
properly  a  surety  or  undertaker  to  God  for  us,  and  not  a  surety 
and  undertaker  to  us  for  God.  And  because  this  is  a  matter 
of  great  importance,  wherein  the  faith  and  consolation  of  the 
church  is  highly  concerned,  I  shall  insist  a  little  upon  it. 

And  first,  we  may  consider  the  argument  that  is  produced  to 
prove  that  Christ  was  only  a  surety  for  God  to  us.  Nov/  this 
is  taken  neither  from  the  name  nor  nature  of  the  office  or  work 
of  surety,  nor  from  the  nature  of  the  covenant,  whereof  he  was 
a  surety,  nor  of  the  office  wherein  he  was  so.    But  the  sole  ar- 

*  Sponsor  foederis  appellatur  Jesus,  quod  nomine  Dei  nobis  spoponderit,  id  est 
fidem  fecerit,  Deum  federis  promissiones  servaturum.  Non  vero  quasi  pro  nobis 
spoponderit  Deo,  nostrorumve  debitorum  solutionem  in  se  receperit.  Nee  enim 
nos  misimus  Christum  sed  Deus,  cujus  nomine  Cliristus  ad  nos  venit,  fcedus  no-, 
biseum  panxit,  ejusque  promissiones  ratas  fore  spopondit  et  in  se  rccepit;  ideoque 
nee  sponsor  simpliciter,  sed  foederis  sponsor  noininatur;  spopondit  autem  Christus 
pro  foederis  divini  veritate,  non  tantum  quatcnus  id  firmum  ratumque  fore  verbis 
perpetuo  testatus  est;  sed  etiam  quatenus  muneris  sui  fidem,  maximis  rerum  ip- 
sarum  comprobavit  documentis,  cum  perfecta  vitae  innocentia  et  sanctitate,  cum 
divinis  plane  quae  patravit  operibus  i  cum  mortis  adeo  trueulentee,  quam  pro  doc- 
trinae  suae  veritate  subiit,  perpessione. 

t  Spopondit  Christus,  i.  e.  Nos  certos  promissi  fecit,  non  solis  verbis,  sed  per-, 
oetua  vitae  sanctitate,  morte  ob  id  tolerata  et  miraculis  plurimis. 


NATURE    OF    CHRISt's    SURETYSHIP.  209 

gument  insisted  on  is,  that  we  do  not  give  Ciirist  as  a  surety 
of  the  covenant  to  God,  but  he  gives  him  to  us,  and  therefore 
he  is  a  surety  for  God  and  the  accomplishment  of  his  promises, 
and  not  for  us  to  pay  our  debts,  or  to  answer  what  is  required 
of  us. 

But  there  is  no  force  in  this  argument.  For  it  belongs  not 
to  the  nature  of  a  surety,  by  whom  he  is  or  may  be  designed 
to  his  office  and  work  therein.  His  own  voluntary  susception 
of  the  office  and  work,  is  all  that  is  required,  however  he  may 
be  designed  or  induced  to  undertake  it.  He  who  of  his  own 
accord  voluntarily  undertakes  for  another,  on  what  grounds, 
reasons,  or  considerations  soever  he  does  so,  is  his  surety. 
And  this  the  Lord  Christ  did  in  the  behalf  of  the  church.  For 
when  it  was  said,  "  sacrifice  and  burnt-ofiering  and  whole 
burnt-offerings  for  sin,  God  would  not  have,"  or  accept  as 
sufficient  to  make  the  atonement  that  he  required,  so  that  the 
covenant  might  be  established  and  made  effectual  to  us,  then 
said  he,  "  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  0  God,"  Heb.  x.  5,  6. 
He  willingly  and  voluntarily  out  of  his  own  abundant  good- 
ness and  love,  took  upon  him  to  make  atonement  for  us, 
wherein  he  was  our  surety.  And  accordingly  this  undertaking 
is  ascribed  to  that  love  which  he  exercised  herein.  Gal.  ii.  20. 
1  John  iii.  16.  Rev.  i.  5.  And  there  was  this  in  it  moreover, 
that  he  took  upon  him  our  nature  or  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
wherein  he  was  our  surety.  So  that  although  we  neither  did 
nor  could  appoint  him  so  to  be,  yet  he  took  from  us,  that  where- 
in and  whereby  he  was  so,  which  is  as  much  as  if  we  had  de- 
signed him  to  his  work,  as  to  the  true  reason  of  his  being  our 
surety.  Wherefore  notwithstanding  those  antecedent  transac- 
tions that  were  between  the  Father  and  him  in  this  matter,  it 
was  the  voluntary  engagement  of  himself  to  be  our  surety, 
and  his  taking  our  nature  upon  him  for  that  end,  which  was 
the  formal  reason  of  his  being  instated  in  that  office. 

It  is  indeed  weak  and  contrary  to  all  common  experience, 
that  none  can  be  a  surety  for  others,  unless  those  others  design 
him  and  appoint  him  so  to  be.  The  principal  instances  of  surety- 
ship in  the  world,  have  been  by  the  voluntary  undertaking  of 
such  as  were  no  way  procured  so  to  do  by  them  for  whom 
they  undertook;  and  in  such  undertakings  he  to  whom  it  is 
made,  is  no  less  considered,  than  they  for  whom  it  is  made. 
As  when  Judah  of  his  own  accord  became  a  surety  for  Benja- 
min, he  had  as  much  respect  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  father, 
as'the  safety  of  his  brother.     And  so  the  Lord  Christ,  in  his 

18* 


210  NATURE    OF    CHRISt's    SURETYSHIP. 

undertaking  to  be  a  surety  for  us,  had  respect  to  the  glory  of 
God  before  our  safety. 

1.  We  may  consider  the  arguments  whence  it  is  evident  that 
he  neither  was,  nor  could  be  a  surety  to  us  for  God,  but  was  so 
for  us  to  God.     For 

1.  Ey^uoj  or  iyyvtjtiji  a  surety,  is  one  that  undertakes  for  an- 
other wherein  he  is  defective  really  or  in  reputation.  What- 
ever that  undertaking  be,  whether  in  words  of  promise,  or  in 
depositing  of  real  security  in  the  hands  of  an  arbitrator,  or  by 
any  other  personal  engagement  of  life  and  body,  it  respects  the 
defect  of  the  person  for  whom  any  one  becomes  a  surety. 
Such  a  one  is  sponsor,  or  fidejussor,  in  all  good  authors  and 
common  use  of  speech.  And  if  any  one  be  of  absolute  credit 
himself,  and  of  a  reputation  every  way  unquestionable,  there 
IS  no  need  of  a  surety,  unless  in  case  of  mortality.  The  words 
of  a  surety  in  the  behalf  of  another  whose  ability  or  reputa- 
tion is  dubious,  are,  ad  me  recipio,  faciei,  aut  faciatn.  "  I 
engage  that  either  he  shall  do  it,  or  I  will.''  And  when  iyyuoj 
is  taken  adjectively,  as  sometimes,  it  signifies  satisdationibus 
obnoxius ;  liable  to  payments  for  others  that  are  insolvent. 

2.  God  can  therefore  have  no  surety  properly,  because  there 
can  be  no  imagination  of  any  defect  on  his  part.  There  may 
be  indeed  a  question  whether  any  word  or  promise,  be  a  word 
or  promise  of  God.  To  assure  us  hereof  is  not  the  work  of  a 
surety,  but  of  any  one,  or  any  means,  that  may  give  evidence 
that  so  it  is,  that  is,  of  a  witness.  But  upon  a  supposition  that 
what  is  proposed  is  his  word  or  promise,  there  can  be  no  imagi- 
nation or  fear  of  any  defect  on  his  part,  so  that  there  should  be 
any  need  of  a  surety  for  the  performance  of  it.  He  therefore 
makes  use  of  witnesses  to  confirm  his  word:  that  is,  to  testify 
that  such  promises  he  has  made,  and  so  he  will  do.  So  the 
Lord  Christ  was  his  witness,  Isa.  xliii.  10.  '•  Ye  are  my  witness- 
es, saith  the  Lord,  and  my  servant  whom  I  have  chosen." 
But  they  were  not  all  his  sureties.  So  he  affirms,  that  he  "  came 
into  the  world  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth,"  John  xviii,  37; 
that  is,  the  truth  of  the  promises  of  God;  for  he  was  "  the  min- 
ister of  the  circumcision  for  the  truth  of  the  promises  of  God 
to  the  fathers,"  Rom.  xv.  8.  But  a  surety  for  God,  properly 
so  called,  he  was  not,  nor  could  be.  The  distance  and  differ- 
ence is  wide  enough  between  a  witness  and  a  surety.  For  a 
surety  must  be  of  more  ability,  or  more  credit  and  reputation 
than  he  or  those  for  whom  he  is  a  surety,  or  there  is  no  need 
of  his  suretyship;  or  at  least  he  must  add  to  their  credit,  and 


NATURE    OF    CHRISt's    SURETYSHIP.  211 

make  it  better  than  without  him.  This  none  can  be  for  God, 
no  not  the  Lord  Christ  himself,  who  in  his  whole  work  was 
the  servant  of  the  Father.  And  the  Apostle  does  not  use  this 
word  in  a  general  improper  sense  for  any  one  that  by  any 
means  gives  assurance  of  any  other  thing,  else  he  had  ascribed 
nothing  peculiar  to  Christ.  For  in  such  a  sense  all  the  prophets 
and  apostles  were  sureties  for  God,  and  many  of  them  confirm- 
ed the  truth  of  his  word  and  promises,  with  the  laying  down 
of  their  lives.  But  such  a  surety  he  intends  as  undertakes  to 
do  that  for  others  which  they  cannot  do  for  themselves;  or  at 
least  are  not  reputed  to  be  able  to  do  what  is  required  of  them. 

3.  The  Apostle  had  before  at  large  declared,  who,  and  what 
was  God's  surety  in  this  matter  of  the  covenant,  and  how  im- 
possible it  was  that  he  should  have  any  other.  And  this  was 
himself  alone,  interposing  himself  by  his  oath.  For  in  this 
cause,  "  because  he  had  none  greater  to  swear  by,  he  sware  by 
himself,"  Heb.  vi.  13,  14.  Wherefore  if  God  Avould  give  any 
other  surety  besides  himself,  it  must  be  one  greater  than  he. 
This  being  every  way  impossible,  he  swears  by  himself  only. 
Many  ways  he  may  and  does  use  for  the  declaring  and  testify- 
ing of  his  truth  to  us,  that  we  may  know  and  believe  it  to  be 
his  word;  and  so  the  Lord  Christ  in  his  ministry  was  the  prin- 
cipal witness  of  the  truth  of  God.  But  other  surety  than  him- 
self he  can  have  none.     And  therefore, 

4.  When  he  would  have  us  in  this  matter  not  only  come  to 
the  full  assurance  of  faith  concerning  his  promises,  but  also  to 
have  strong  consolation  therein,  he  resolves  it  wholly  into  the 
immutability  of  his  counsel,  as  declared  by  his  promise  and 
oath,  Heb.  vi.  18,19.  So  that  neither  is  God  capable  of  hav- 
ing any  surety  properly  so  called,  nor  do  we  stand  in  need  of 
any  on  his  part,  for  the  confirmation  of  our  faith  in  the  highest 
degree. 

5.  We  on  all  accounts  stand  in  need  of  a  surety  for  us,  or  on 
our  behalf.  Nor  without  the  interposition  of  such  a  surety, 
could  any  covenant  between  God  and  us  be  firm  and  stable,  or 
•'  an  everlasting  covenant,  ordered  in  all  things  and  sure."  In 
the  first  covenant  made  with  Adam  there  was  no  surety,  but 
God  and  men  were  the  immediate  covenanters.  And  although 
we  were  then  in  a  state  and  condition  able  to  perform  and  an- 
swer all  the  terms  of  the  covenant,  yet  was  it  broken  and  dis- 
annulled. If  this  came  to  pass  by  the  failure  of  the  promise  of 
God,  it  was  necessary  that  on  the  making  of  a  new  covenant 
he  should  have  a  surety  to  undertake  for  him,  that  the  cove- 


212  NATURE    OF    CHRISt's    SURETYSHIP. 

nant  might  be  stable  and  everlasting.  But  this  is  false  and 
blasphemous  to  imagine.  It  was  man  alone  who  failed  and 
broke  that  covenant.  Wherefore  it  was  necessary  that,  upon 
the  making  of  the  new  covenant,  and  that  v/ith  a  design  and 
purpose  that  it  should  never  be  disannulled  as  the  former  was, 
we  should  have  a  surety  and  undertaker  for  us.  For  if  that 
first  covenant  was  not  firm  and  stable,  because  there  was  no 
surety  to  undertake  for  us,  notwithstanding  all  that  ability 
which  we  had  to  answer  the  terms  of  it;  how  much  less  can 
any  other  be  so,  now  our  natures  are  become  depraved  and 
sinful  ?  Wherefore  we  alone  were  capable  of  a  surety,  pro- 
perly so  called,  for  us;  we  alone  stood  in  need  of  him,  and 
without  him  the  covenant  could  not  be  firm,  and  inviolate  on 
our  parts.  The  surety  therefore  of  this  covenant  is  so  with 
God  for  us. 

6.  It  is  the  priesthood  of  Christ  that  the  Apostle  treats  of  in 
this  place,  and  that  alone.  Wherefore  he  is  a  surety  as  he  is  a 
priest,  and  in  the  discharge  of  that  office,  and  therefore  is  so 
with  God  on  our  behalf  This  Schlictingius  observes,  and  is 
aware  what  will  ensue  against  his  pretensions,  which  he  en- 
deavours to  obviate.*  "  Some  may  think  it  strange  that  the  in- 
spired writer,  when  treating  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  in 
what  precedes  and  what  follows,  all  at  once  calls  him  the 
surety  of  the  covenant,  and  not  the  priest.  Why  did  he  not 
say,  'of  so  much  better  a  covenant  was  Jesus  made  di priest?^ 
for  this  the  whole  context  evidently  seems  to  require.  We  may 
believe  that  under  the  name  of  suretyship  is  understood  the 
priesthood  also  of  Christ.  For  it  is  the  office  of  a  surety,  not 
only  to  promise  something  in  another's  name,  and  to  pledge  • 
his  credit  for  another,  but  also,  if  need  be,  to  perform  in  ano- 
ther's name,  what  he  engaged.  In  human  affairs,  this  takes 
place,  when  he  for  whom  the  surety  engaged,  does  not  per- 
form; but  in  this  case  for  a  contrary  reason  (for  the  former 
cannot  have  a  place  here)  inasmuch  as  he  for  whom  Christ  be- 

*  Mirutn  porro  alicui  videri  posset  cur  divinus  author  de  Christi  sacerdotio  in 
superioribus  et  in  sequentibus  agens,  derepente  eum  sponsorem  foederis  non  vero 
sacerdotem  vocet?  Cur  non  dixerit  tanto  prcestantioris  foederis  factus  est  sacer- 
dos  Jesus?  hocenim  plane  rcquirerc  vidctur  totus  orationis  contextus.  Credibile 
est  in  voce  sponsionis  sacerdotiuni  quoque  Cliristi  intelligi.  Sponsoris  enim  noii 
modo  est  alieno  nomine  quippiam  promitterc,  ct  fidcm  suani  pro  alio  interponere; 
.sed  etiam,  si  ita  res  ferat,  alterius  nomine  id  quod  spopondit  praestare.  In  rebus 
quidem  humanis,  si  id  non  prcestet  is  pro  quo  sponsor  fidejussit;  hie  vero  propter 
contrariani  causam  (nam  prior  liic  locum  habere  non  potest)  nempe  quatenusille 
pro  quo  spopondit  Christus  per  ipsum  Christum  promissa  sua  nobis  exhibet;  qua 
in  re  prsecipuc  Christi  sacerdotium  continetur. 


CAUSES    OF    THE     NEW    COVENANT.  213 

comes  a  surety,  exhibits  to  us  his  promises  through  Christ  him- 
self; and  in  this  chiefly  consists  the  priesthood  of  Christ." 

Answ.  (1)  It  may  indeed  seem  strange  to  any  one  who 
imagines  Christ  to  be  such  a  surety  as  he  does,  why  the  Apos- 
tle should  so  call  him,  and  so  introduce  him  in  the  description 
of  his  priestly  oflice,  as  that  which  belongs  thereto.  But  grant 
what  is  the  proper  work  and  duty  of  a  surety,  and  whom  the 
Lord  Jesus  was  a  surety  for,  and  it  is  evident  that  nothing 
more  proper  or  pertinent  could  be  mentioned  by  him,  when  he 
was  in  the  declaration  of  that  oflice.  (2)  He  confesses  that  by 
his  exposition  of  this  suretyship  of  Christ,  as  making  him  a 
surety  for  God,  he  contradicts  the  nature  and  only  notion  of  a 
surety  among  men.  For  sucli  a  one  he  acknowledges  does 
nothing  but  in  the  defect  and  inabUity  of  them  for  whom  he  is 
engaged  and  undertakes.  He  is  to  pay  that  which  they  owe. 
and  to  do  what  is  to  be  done  by  them,  which  they  cannot  per- 
form. And  if  this  be  not  the  notion  of  a  surety  in  this  place, 
the  Apostle  makes  use  of  a  word  no  where  else  used  in  the 
whole  Scripture,  to  teach  us  that  which  it  never  signifies  among 
men,  which  is  improbable  and  absurd.  For  the  sole  reason 
why  he  made  use  of  it  was,  that  from  the  nature  and  notion  of 
it  amongst  men  in  other  cases,  we  may  understand  the  signifi- 
cation of  it;  what  he  intends  by  it,  and  what,  under  that  name, 
he  ascribes  to  the  Lord  Jesus.  (3)  He  has  no  way  to  solve  the 
Apostle's  mention  of  Christ  being  a  surety  in  the  description  of 
his  priestly  office,  but  by  overthrowing  the  nature  of  that  oflice 
also.  For  to  confirm  this  absurd  notion  that  Christ  as  a  priest 
was  a  surety  for  God,  he  would  have  us  believe  that  the  priest- 
hood of  Christ  consists  in  his  making  eff'ectual  to  us  the  promi- 
ses of  God,  or  his  eff'ectual  communicating  of  the  good  things 
promised  to  us;  the  falsehood  of  which  notion,  really  destruc- 
tive of  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  I  have  elsewhere  at  large  de- 
tected and  confuted.  Wherefore  seeing  the  Lord  Christ  is  a 
surety  of  the  covenant  as  a  priest,  and  all  the  sacerdotal  actings 
of  Christ  have  God  for  their  immediate  object,  and  are  per- 
formed with  him  on  our  behalf,  he  was  a  surety  for  us  also. 

A  surety,  sponsor,  vas,  prses,  fidejussor,  for  us,  the  Lord 
Christ  was,  by  his  voluntary  undertaking  out  of  his  rich  grace 
and  love,  to  do,  answer,  and  perform  all  that  is  required  on  our 
parts,  that  we  may  enjoy  the  benefits  of  the  coveiiant,  the 
grace  and  glory  prepared,  proposed,  and  promised  in  it,  in  the 
way  and  manner  determined  on  by  divine  wisdom.  And  this 
may  be  reduced  to  two  heads.  1.  His  answering  for  our  trans- 


214  CAUSES    OF    THE    NEW    COVENANT. 

gressions  against  the  first  covenant.  2.  His  purchase  and  pro- 
curement of  the  grace  of  the  new.  "  He  was  made  a  curse  for 
us,  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  upon  us,"  Gal.  iii. 
13—15. 

1.  He  undertook  as  the  surety  of  the  covenant  to  answer  for 
all  the  sins  of  those  who  are  to  be,  and  are,  made  partakers  of 
the  benefits  of  it.  That  is,  to  undergo  the  punishment  due  to 
their  sins;  to  make  atonement  for  them,  by  oifering  himself  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  expiation  of  their  sins,  redeeming 
them  by  the  price  of  his  blood  from  their  state  of  misery  and 
bondage  under  the  law  and  the  curse  of  it,  Isa.  liii.  4 — 6,  10; 
Matth.  XX.  28;  I  Tim.  ii.  6;  1  Cor.  vi.  20;  Rom.  iii.  25,26; 
Heb.  X.  5— S;  Rom.  viii.  2,  3;  2  Cor.  v.  19—21;  Gal.  iii.  13. 
And  this  was  absolutely  necessary  that  the  grace  and  glory 
prepared  in  the  covenant  might  be  communicated  to  us.  \yith- 
out  this  undertaking  of  his,  and  performance  of  it,  the  righteous- 
ness and  faithfulness  of  God  would  not  permit,  that  sinners, 
such  as  had  apostatized  from  him,  despised  his  authority  and 
rebelled  against  him,  falling  thereby  under  the  sentence  and 
curse  of  the  law,  should  again  be  received  into  his  favour,  and 
made  partakers  of  grace  and  glory.  This  therefore  the  Lord 
Christ  took  upon  himself,  as  the  surety  of  the  covenant. 

2.  That  those  who  were  to  be  taken  into  this  covenant  should 
receive  grace  enabling  them  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  it,  ful- 
fil its  conditions,  and  yield  the  obedience  which  God  required 
therein.  For  by  the  ordination  of  God,  he  was  to  procure,  and 
did  merit  and  procure  for  them  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  all  need- 
ful supplies  of  grace  to  make  them  new  creatures,'  and  enable 
them  to  yield  obedience  to  God  from  a  new  principle  of  spiritual 
life,  and  that  faithfully  to  the  end.  So  was  he  the  surety  of 
this  better  testament.  But  all  things  belonging  hereto  will  be 
handled  at  large  in  the  place  from  whence,  as  I  said,  these  are 
taken,  as  suitable  to  our  present  occasion. 

But  some  have  other  notions  of  these  things.  For  they  say, 
"that  Christ  by  his  death,  and  his  obedience  therein,  whereby 
he  offered  himself  a  sacrifice  of  sweet  smelling  savour  to  God, 
procured  for  us  the  new  covenant;  or,  as  one  speaks,  all  that 
we  iiave  by  the  death  of  Christ  is,  that  thereto  we  owe  the 
covenant  of  grace.  For  herein  he  did  and  suffered  what  God 
required  and  freely  appointed  him  to  do  and  suffer.  Not  that 
the  justice  of  God  required  any  such  thing  with  respect  to  their 
sins  for  whom  he  died,  and  in  whose  stead,  or  'to  bestead'  whom, 
he  suffered,  but  what  by  a  free  constitution  of  divine  wisdom 


CAUSES    OF    THE    NEW    COVENANT.  215 

and  sovereignty  was  appointed  to  him.  Hereon,  God  was 
pleased  to  remit  the  terms  of  the  old  covenant,  and  to  enter 
into  a  new  covenant  with  mankind  upon  terms  suited  to  our 
reason,  possible  to  our  abilities,  and  every  way  advantageous 
to  us.  For  these  terms  are  faith  and  sincere  obedience,  or  such 
an  assent  to  the  truth  of  divine  revelations,  as  is  effectual  in 
obedience  to  the  will  of  God  contained  in  them,  upon  the  en- 
couragement given  thereto  in  the  promises  of  eternal  life,  or  a 
future  reward  made  therein.  On  the  peformance  of  these  con- 
ditions our  justification,  adoption,  and  future  glory  depend;  for 
they  are  that  righteousness  before  God,  whereon  he  pardons 
our  sins,  and  accepts  our  persons,  as  if  we  were  perfectly  right- 
eous." Wherefore  by  this  procuring  the  new  covenant  for  us, 
which  they  ascribe  to  the  death  of  Christ,  they  intend  the  abro- 
gation of  the  old  covenant,  or  of  the  law,  or  at  least  such  a  de- 
rogation from  it,  that  it  shall  no  more  oblige  us  either  to  sinless 
obedience  or  panishment,  nor  require  a  perfect  righteousness 
for  our  justification  before  God;  and  the  constitution  of  a  new 
law  of  obedience  accommodated  to  our  present  state  and  con- 
dition, on  whose  observance  all  the  promises  of  the  gospel 
depend. 

Others  say,  that  in  the  death  of  Christ  there  was  real  satis- 
faction made  to  God;  not  to  the  law,  or  to  God  according  to 
what  the  law  required,  but  to  God  absolutely.  That  is,  he  did 
what  God  was  well  pleased  and  satisfied  with,  without  any 
respect  to  his  justice  or  the  corse  of  the  law.  And  they  add, 
that  hereon  the  whole  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us, 
so  far  as  that  we  are  made  partakers  of  the  benefits  thereof. 
And  moreover,  that  the  way  of  the  communication  of  them 
to  us,  is  by  the  new  covenant  which  by  his  death,  the  Lord 
Christ  procured.  For  the  conditions  of  this  covenant  are  estab- 
lished in  the  covenant  itself,  whereon  God  will  bestow  all  the 
benefits  and  effects  of  it  upon  us,  which  are  faith  and  obedience. 
Wherefore  what  the  Lord  Christ  has  done  for  us,  is  thus  far 
accepted  as  our  legal  righteousness,  that  God  upon  our  faith 
and  obedience  with  respect  thereto,  releases  and  pardons  all 
our  sins  of  omission  and  commission.  Upon  this  pardon  there 
is  no  need  of  any  positive  perfect  righteousness  to  our  justifica- 
tion or  salvation,  but  our  own  personal  righteousness  is  accept- 
ed with  God  in  the  room  of  it,  by  virtue  of  the  new  covenant 
which  Christ  has  procured.  So  is  the  doctrine  hereof  stated  by 
Curcella3us,  and  those  that  join  with  him,  or  follow  him. 

Sundry  things  there  are  in  these  opinions  that  deserve  an  ex- 


216  CAUSES    OF   THE    NEW    COVENANT. 

amination;  and  they  will  most,  if  not  all  of  them,  occur  to  us 
in  our  progress.  That  which  alone  we  have  occasion  to  inquire 
into  with  respect  to  what  we  have  discoursed  concerning  the 
Lord  Christ  as  surety  of  the  covenant,  and  which  is  the  found- 
ation of  all  that  is  asserted  in  them,  is,  that  Christ  by  his 
death  procured  the  new  covenant  for  us;  which,  as  one  says, 
"  is  all  that  we  have  thereby;"  which  if  it  should  prove  other- 
wise, we  are  not  beholden  to  it  for  any  thing  at  all.  But  these 
things  must  be  examined.     And, 

1.  Thetermsof 'procuring  the  new  covenant'  are  ambiguous. 
It  is  not  ^'■et  (that  I  know  of)  by  any  declared  how  the  Lord 
Christ  procured  it;  whether  he  did  so  by  his  satisfaction  and 
obedience,  as  the  meritorious  cause  of  it,  or  by  what  other 
kind  of  causality.  Unless  this  be  stated,  we  are  altogether  un- 
certain what  relation  of  the  new  covenant  to  the  death  of 
Christ  is  intended.  And  to  say  that  thereto  we  owe  the  new 
covenant,  does  not  mend  the  matter,  but  rather  renders  the 
terms  more  ambiguous.  Neither  is  it  declared  whether  the 
constitution  of  the  covenant,  or  the  communication  of  the  be- 
nefits of  it,  is  intended.  It  is  yet  no  less  general,  that  '  God  was 
so  well  pleased  with  what  Christ  did,  that  hereon  he  made  and 
entered  into  a  new  covenant  with  mankind.'  This  they  may 
grant  who  yet  deny  the  whole  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ. 
If  they  mean  that  the  Lord  Christ  by  his  obedience  and  suffering 
meritoriously  procured  the  making  and  establishing  the  new  co- 
venant, which  was  all  that  he  so  procured,  and  the  entire  effect 
of  his  death,  what  they  say  may  be  understood,  but  the  whole 
nature  of  the  mediation  of  Christ  is  overthrown  thereby. 

2.  This  opinion  is  liable  to  a  great  prejudice,  in  that  whereas 
it  is  in  such  a  fundamental  article  of  our  religion,  and  about 
that  wherein  the  eternal  welfare  of  the  church  is  so  nearly 
concerned,  there  is  no  mention  made  of  it  in  the  Scripture. 
For  is  it  not  strange,  if  this  be,  as  some  speak,  the  sole  ef- 
fect of  the  death  of  Christ,  whereas  sundry  other  things  are 
frequently  in  the  Scripture  ascribed  to  it,  as  the  effects  and 
fruits  thereof,  that  this  which  is  only  so  should  be  no  where 
mentioned,  neither  in  express  words,  nor  such  as  will  allow  of 
this  sense  by  any  just  or  lawful  consequence.  Our  redemption, 
pardon  of  sins,  the  renovation  of  our  natures,  our  sanctifica- 
tion,  justification,  peace  with  God,  eternal  life,  are  all  jointly 
and  severally  assigned  thereto  in  places  almost  without  num- 
ber. But  it  is  no  where  said  in  the  Scripture,  "  that  Christ  by 
his  death,  merited,  procured,  obtained  the  new  covenant;"  or 


CAUSES    OF    THE    NEW    COVENANT.  217 

that  God  should  enter  into  a  new  covenant  with  mankind;  yea 
as  we  shall  see,  that  which  is  contrary  to  it,  and  inconsistent 
with  it,  is  frequently  asserted. 

3.  To  clear  the  truth  herein,  we  must  consider  the  several 
notions  and  causes  of  the  new  covenant;  with  the  true  and 
real  respect  of  the  death  of  Christ  thereto.  And  it  is  variously 
represented  to  us. 

1.  In  the  designation  and  preparation  of  its  terras  and  bene- 
fits in  the  counsel  of  God.  And  tliis  although  it  has  the  nature 
of  an  eternal  decree,  yet  it  is  not  the  same  with  the  decree  of 
election,  as  some  suppose.  For  that  properly  respects  the  sub- 
jects or  persons  for  whom  grace  and  glory  are  prepared.  This 
is  the  preparation  of  that  grace  and  glory,  as  to  the  way  and 
manner  of  their  communication.  Some  learned  men  judge 
that  this  counsel  and  purpose  of  the  will  of  God,  to  give  grace 
and  glory  in  and  by  Jesus  Christ  to  the  elect  in  the  way  and 
by  the  means  by  him  prepared,  is  formally  the  covenant  of 
grace,  or  at  least  that  the  substance  of  the  covenant  is  com- 
prised therein.  But  it  is  certain,  that  more  is  required  to  com- 
plete the  whole  nature  of  a  covenant.  Nor  is  this  purpose  or 
counsel  of  God  called  the  covenant  in  the  Scripture,  but  is  only 
proposed  as  the  spring  and  fountain  of  it,  Eph.  i.  3 — 11.  Unto 
the  full  exemplification  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  there  is  re- 
quired the  declaration  of  this  counsel  of  God's  will,  accompanied 
with  the  means  and  powers  of  its  accomplishment,  and  the 
prescription  of  the  ways  whereby  we  are  so  to  be  interested 
in  it,  and  made  partakers  of  the  benefits  of  it.  But  in  the  in- 
quiry after  the  procuring  cause  of  the  new  covenant,  it  is  the 
first  thing  that  ought  to  come  under  consideration.  For  nothing 
can  be  the  procuring  cause  of  the  covenant  which  is  not  so  of 
this  spring  and  fountain  of  it,  of  this  idea  of  it  in  the  mind  of 
God,  of  the  preparation  of  its  terms  and  benefits.  But  this  is 
nowhere  in  the  Scripture  affirmed  to  be  the  effect  of  the  death 
or  mediation  of  Christ ;  and  to  ascribe  it  thereto,  is  to  over- 
throw the  whole  freedom  of  eternal  grace  and  love.  Neither 
can  any  thing  that  is  absolutely  eternal,  as  is  this  decree  and 
counsel  of  God,  be  the  effect  of,  or  procured  by  any  thing  that 
is  external  and  temporal. 

2.  It  may  be  considered  with  respect  to  the  federal  transac- 
tions between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  concerning  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  counsel  of  his  will.  What  these  were,  wherein 
they  consisted,  I  have  declared  at  large;  Exercitat.  vol.  2. 
Neither  do  I  call  this  the  covenant  of  grace  absolutely,  nor  is  it 

19 


218  CAUSES    OF    THE    NEW    COVENANT. 

SO  called  in  the  Scripture.  But  yet  some  will  not  distinguish  be- 
tween the  covenantor  the  mediator,  and  the  covenant  of  grace, 
because  the  promises  of  the  covenant  absolutely  are  said  to  be 
made  to  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  16;  and  he  is  the  rt^t^tov  dixtixov,  or  first 
subject  of  all  the  grace  of  it.  But  in  the  covenant  of  the  me- 
diator, Christ  stands  alone  for  himself,  and  undertakes  for  him- 
self alone,  and  not  as  the  representative  of  the  church.  But 
this  he  is  in  the  covenant  of  grace.  But  this  is  that  wherein  it 
had  its  designed  establishment  as  to  all  the  ways,  means,  and 
ends  of  its  accomplishment;  and  all  things  so  disposed  as  that 
it  might  be  effectual  to  the  eternal  glory  of  the  wisdom,  grace, 
righteousness,  and  power  of  God.  Wherefore  the  covenant  of 
grace  could  not  be  procured  by  any  means  or  cause,  but  that 
which  was  the  cause  of  this  covenant  of  the  mediator,  or  of 
God  the  Father  with  the  Son,  as  undertaking  the  work  of  me- 
diation. And  as  this  is  nowhere  ascribed  to  the  death  of  Christ 
in  the  Scripture,  so  to  assert  it,  is  contrary  to  all  spiritual  reason 
and  understanding.  Who  can  conceive  that  Christ  by  his  death 
should  procure  the  agreement  between  God  and  him,  that  he 
should  die  ? 

3.  With  respect  to  the  declaration  of  it  by  especial  revela- 
tion. This  we  may  call  God's  making  or  establishing  it,  if  we 
please;  though  making  of  Ihe  covenant  in  Scripture, is  applied 
principally,  if  not  only,  to  its  execution  or  actual  application  to 
persons,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  5;  Jerem.  xxxii.  40.  This  declaration 
of  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  provision  in  the  covenant  of  the 
mediator  for  the  making  of  it  effectual  to  his  glory,  is  most 
usually  called  the  covenant  of  grace.     And  this  is  twofold, 

1.  In  the  way  of  a  singular  and  absolute  promise;  so  was  it 
first  declared  to,  and  established  with  Adam,  and  afterwards 
with  Abraham.  The  promise  is  the  declaration  of  tlie  purpose 
of  God  before  declared,  or  the  free  determination  and  counsel 
of  his  will,  as  to  his  dealing  with  sinners  on  the  supposition  of 
the  fall,  and  their  forfeiture  of  the  first  covenant  state.  Hereof 
the  grace  and  will  of  God  was  the  only  cause,  Heb.  viii.  S. 
And  the  death  of  Christ  could  not  be  the  means  of  its  procure- 
ment, for  he  himself  and  all  that  he  was  to  do  for  us,  was  the 
substance  of  that  promise.  And  this  promise  as  it  is  declara- 
tive of  the  purpose  or  counsel  of  the  will  of  God,  for  the  com- 
munication of  grace  and  glory  to  sinners,  in  and  by  the  media- 
tion of  Christ,  according  to  the  ways  and  on  the  terms  prepared 
and  disposed  in  his  sovereign  wisdom  and  pleasure,  is  formally 
the  new  covenant,  though  something  yet  is  to  be  added  to  com- 


CAUSES    OF    THE    NEW    COVENANT.  219 

plete  its  application  to  us.  Now  the  substance  of  the  first  pro- 
mise, wherein  the  whole  covenant  of  grace  was  virtually  com- 
prised, directly  respected  and  expressed  the  giving  of  him  for 
the  recovery  of  mankind  from  sin  and  misery  by  his  death. 
Gen.  iii.  15.  Wherefore  if  he,  and  all  the  benefits  of  his  media- 
tion, his  death  and  all  the  effects  of  it,  be  contained  in  the  pro- 
mise of  the  covenant,  that  is,  in  the  covenant  itself,  then  was 
not  his  death  the  procuring  cause  of  that  covenant,  nor  do  we 
owe  it  thereto, 

2.  In  the  additional  prescription  of  the  v/ay  and  means 
whereby  it  is  the  will  of  God,  that  we  shall  enter  into  a  cove- 
nant state  with  him,  or  be  interested  in  the  benefits  of  it.  This 
being  virtually  comprised  in  the  absolute  promise  (for  every 
promise  of  God  tacitly  requires  faith  and  obedience  in  us)  is 
expressed  in  other  places  by  the  way  of  the  condition  required 
on  our  part.  This  is  not  the  covenant,  but  the  constitution  of 
the  terms  on  our  part,  whereon  we  are  made  partakers  of  it. 
Nor  is  the  constitution  of  these  terms,  an  eff"ect  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  or  procured  thereby.  It  is  a  mere  effect  of  the  sovereign 
grace  and  wisdom  of  God.  The  things  themselves  as  bestow- 
ed on  us,  communicated  to  us,  wrought  in  us  by  grace,  are  all 
of  them  effects  of  the  death  of  Christ;  but  the  constitution  of 
them  to  be  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  covenant  is  an  act 
of  mere  sovereign  wisdom  and  grace.  "  God  so  loved  the  world 
as  to  send  his  only  begotten  son"  to  die,  not  that  faith  and  re- 
pentance might  be  the  means  of  salvation,  but  that  all  his  elect 
might  believe,  and  that  all  that  believe  "  might  not  perish,  but 
have  life  everlasting."  But  yet  it  is  gratited  that  the  constitution 
of  these  terms  of  the  covenant  respects  the  federal  transaction 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  wherein  they  were  ordered  to 
the  praise  of  the  glory  of  God's  grace;  and  so  although  their 
constitution  was  not  the  procurement  of  his  death,  yet  without 
respect  to  it,  it  had  not  been.  Wherefore  the  sole  cause  of 
God's  making  the  new  covenant,  was  the  same  with  that  of 
giving  Christ  himself  to  be  our  mediator,  namely,  the  purpose, 
counsel,  goodness,  grace  and  love  of  God,  as  it  is  every  where 
expressed  in  the  Scripture. 

4thly,  The  covenant  may  be  considered  as  to  the  actual  ap- 
plication of  the  grace,  benefit  and  privileges  of  it  to  any  per- 
sons, whereby  they  are  made  real  partakers  of  them,  or  are 
taken  into  covenant  with  God.  And  this  alone  in  the  Scrip- 
ture is  intended  by  God's  making  a  covenant  with  any.  It  is 
not  a  general  revelation,  or  declaration  of  the  terms  and  nature 


220  CAUSES    OF   THE    NEW    COVENANT, 

of  the  covenant  (which  some  call  a  universal  conditional  cove- 
nant, on  what  grounds  they  know  best,  seeing  the  very  formal 
nature  of  making  a  covenant  with  any,  includes  the  actual  ac- 
ceptation of  it,  and  participation  of  the  benefits  of  it  by  them) 
but  a  communication  of  the  grace  of  it,  accompanied  with  a 
prescription  of  obedience,  that  is  God's  making  his  covenant 
with  any,  as  all  instances  of  it  in  the  Scripture  declare. 

It  may  be  therefore  inquired,  what  respect  the  covenant  of 
grace  has  to  the  death  of  Christ,  or  what  influence  it  has 
upon  it. 

I  answer,  supposing  what  is  spoken  of  his  being  a  surety 
thereof,  it  has  a  threefold  respect  thereto. 

1.  In  that  the  covenant,  as  the  grace  and  glory  of  it  were 
prepared  in  the  counsel  of  God,  as  the  terms  of  it  were  fixed 
in  the  covenant  of  the  Mediator,  and  as  it  was  declared  in  the 
promise,  was  confirmed,  ratified,  and  made  irrevocable  there- 
by. This  our  Apostle  insists  upon  at  large,  Heb.  ix.  15 — 20. 
And  he  compares  his  blood  in  his  death  and  sacrifice  of  himself, 
to  the  sacrifices  and  their  blood  whereby  the  old  covenant  was 
confirmed,  purified,  dedicated  or  established,  ver.  18,  19.  Now 
these  sacrifices  did  not  procure  that  covenant,  or  prevail  with 
God  to  enter  into  it ;  but  only  ratified  and  confirmed  it;  and 
this  was  done  in  the  new  covenant  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 

2.  He  thereby  underwent  and  performed  all  that  which  in 
the  righteousness  and  wisdom  of  God  was  required,  that  the 
eflects,  fruits,  benefits  and  grace,  intended,  designed,  and  pre- 
pared in  the  new  covenant  might  be  effectually  accomplished, 
and  communicated  to  sinners.  Hence  although  he  procured 
not  the  covenant  for  us  by  his  death,  yet  he  was  in  his  person, 
mediation,  life  and  death,  the  only  cause  and  means  whereby 
the  whole  grace  of  the  covenant  is  made  efl'ectual  to  us.     For, 

3.  All  the  benefits  of  it  were  procured  by  him;  that  is,  all  the 
grace,  mercy,  privileges  and  glory  that  God  has  prepared  in  the 
counsel  of  his  will,  that  were  fixed  as  to  the  way  of  this  com- 
munication in  the  covenant  of  the  Mediator,  and  proposed  in 
the  promises  of  it,  are  purchased,  merited,  and  procured  by  his 
death;  and  effectually  communicated  or  applied  to  all  the  co- 
venanters by  virtue  thereof,  with  others  of  his  mediatory  acts. 
And  this  is  much  more  an  eminent  procuring  of  the  new  cove- 
nant, than  what  is  pretended  about  the  procurement  of  its  terms 
and  conditions.  For  if  he  should  have  procured  no  more  but 
this,  if  we  owe  this  only  to  his  mediation,  that  God  would  there- 
on, or  did  grant  and  establish  this  rule,  law,  and  promise,  that 


CAUSES    OF    THE    NEW    COVENANT.  221 

whoever  believed  should  be  saved,  it  were  possible  that  no  one 
should  be  saved  thereby;  yea,  if  he  did  no  more,  considering 
our  state  and  condition,  it  was  impossible  that  any  one  should 
be  saved. 

To  give  the  sum  of  these  things,  it  is  inquired  with  respect 
to  which  of  these  considerations  of  the  new  covenant,  it  is 
affirmed  that  it  was  procured  by  the  death  of  Christ.  If  it  be 
said,  that  it  is  with  respect  to  the  actual  communication  of  all 
the  grace  and  glory  prepared  in  the  covenant,  and  proposed  to 
us  in  the  promises  of  it,  it  is  most  true.  All  the  grace  and 
glory  promised  in  the  covenant  was  purchased  for  the  church 
by  Jesus  Christ,  In  this  sense  by  his  death  he  procured  the  new 
covenant.  This  the  whole  Scripture  from  the  beginning  of  it 
in  the  first  promise  to  the  end  of  it,  bears  witness  lo.  For  it  is 
in  him  alone  that  "God  blesses  us  with  all  spiritual  blessings 
in  heavenly  things."  Let  all  the  good  things  that  are  men- 
tioned or  promised  in  the  covenant  expressly,  or  by  just  conse- 
quence, be  summed  up,  and  it  will  be  no  hard  matter  to  de- 
monstrate concerning  them  all,  and  that  both  jointly  and  seve- 
rally, that  they  were  all  procured  for  us  by  the  obedience  and 
death  of  Christ. 

But  this  is  not  that  which  is  intended.  For  most  of  this 
opinion  deny  that  the  grace  of  ihe  covenant  in  conversion  to 
God,  the  remission  of  sins,  sanctification,  justification,  adoption 
and  the  like,  are  the  effects  or  procurements  of  the  death  of 
Christ.  And  on  the  other  hand  they  declare,  that  it  is  God's 
making  of  the  covenant  which  they  intend:  that  is,  the  con- 
trivance of  the  terms  and  conditions  of  it,  with  their  pro- 
posal to  mankind  for  their  recovery.  But  herein  there  is  ovbiv 
vytii.     For 

1.  The  Lord  Christ  himself,  and  the  whole  work  of  his  me- 
diation, as  the  ordinance  of  God  for  the  recovery  and  salvation 
of  lost  sinners,  is  the  first  and  principal  promise  of  the  covenant. 
So  his  exliibition  in  the  flesli,  his  work  of  mediation  therein 
with  our  deliverance  thereby,  was  the  subject  of  that  first  pro- 
mise, which  virtually  contained  this  whole  covenant.  So  he 
was  of  the  renovation  of  it  to  Abraham  when  it  was  solemnly 
confirmed  by  the  oath  of  God,  Gal.  iii.  16,  17.  And  Christ 
did  not  by  his  death  procure  the  promise  of  his  death,  nor  of 
his  exhibition  in  the  flesh,  or  his  coming  into  the  world,  that 
he  might  die. 

2.  The  making  of  this  covenant  is  every  where  in  the  Scrip- 
ture ascribed  (as  is  also  the  sending  of  Christ  himself  to  die) 

19* 


222 


CAUSES    OF  THE    NEW    COVENAINT. 


to  the  love,  grace  and  wisdom  of  God  alone;  no  where  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  as  the  actual  communication  of  all  grace  and 
glory  is.  Let  all  the  places  be  considered,  where  either  the 
giving  of  the  promise,  the  sending  of  Christ,  or  the  making  of 
the  covenant  is  mentioned,  either  expressly  or  virtually,  and 
in  none  of  them  are  they  assigned  to  any  other  cause,  but  the 
grace,  love,  and  wisdom  of  God  alone,  all  to  be  made  effectual 
to  us,  by  the  mediation  of  Christ. 

3.  The  assignation  of  the  sole  end  of  the  death  of  Christ  to 
be  the  procurement  of  the  new  covenant  in  the  sense  contend- 
ed for,  really  makes  void  all  the  virtue  of  the  death  of  Christ 
and  of  the  covenant  itself.  For  (1)  the  covenant  which  they 
intend,  is  nothing  but-  the  constitution  and  proposal  of  new 
terms  and  conditions  for  life  and  salvation  to  all  men.  Now 
whereas  the  acceptance  and  accomplishment  of  these  condi- 
tions, depend  upon  the  wills  of  men  no  way  determined  by  ef- 
fectual grace,  it  was  possible  that  notwithstanding  all  Christ 
did  by  his  death,  yet  no  one  sinner  might  be  saved  thereby, 
but  that  the  whole  end  and  design  of  God  therein  might  be 
frustrated.  (2)  Whereas  the  substantial  advantage  of  these 
conditions  lies  herein,  that  God  will  now  for  the  sake  of  Christ, 
accept  of  an  obedience,  inferior  to  that  required  in  the  law,  and 
so  as  that  the  grace  of  Christ  does  not  raise  up  all  things  to  a 
conformity  and  compliance  with  the  holiness  and  will  of  God 
declared  therein,  but  accommodate  all  things  to  our  present 
condition,  nothing  can  be  invented  more  dishonourable  to 
Christ  and  the  gospel.  For  what  does  it  else  but  make  Christ 
the  minister  of  sin,  in  disanulling  the  holiness  that  the  law  re- 
quires, or  the  obligation  of  the  law  to  it,  without  any  provision 
of  what  might  answer,  or  come  into  the  room  of  it,  but  that 
which  is  incomparably  less  worthy.  Nor  is  it  consistent  with 
divine  wisdom,  goodness  and  immutability,  to  appoint  mankind 
a  law  of  obedience,  and  cast  them  all  under  the  severest  penal- 
ty upon  the  transgression  of  it,  when  he  could  in  justice  and 
honour,  have  given  them  such  a  law  of  obedience,  whose  ob- 
servance might  consist  with  many  failings  and  sins.  For  if  he 
have  done  that  now,  he  could  have  done  so  before,  and  how 
far  this  reflects  on  the  irlory  of  the  divine  properties,  might  be 
easily  manifested.  Neither  does  this  fond  imagination  com- 
ply with  those  testimonies  of  Scripture,  that  the  Lord  Christ 
"  came  not  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  fulfil  it,"  that  he  is  the 
end  of  the  law,  and  that  by  faith  the  law  is  not  disanulled  but 
established. 


CHRIST    AND    BELIEVERS    ONE    MYSTICAL    PERSON.  223 

Lastly,  the  Lord  Christ  was  the  mediator  and  surety  of  the 
new  covenant,  in  and  by  whom  it  was  ratified,  confirmed  and 
established;  and  therefore  by  him  the  constitution  of  it  was 
not  procured.  For  all  the  acts  of  his  office  belong  to  that  me- 
diation; and  it  cannot  be  well  apprehended  how  any  act  of 
mediation  for  the  establishment  of  the  covenant  and  rendering 
it  eff'ectual,  should  procure  it,. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression ;  that,  wherein  all  the  prece- 
dent causes  of  the  union  between  Christ  and  behevers,  whence 
they  become  one  mystical  person,  centre,  and  whereby  they 
are  rendered  a  complete  foundation  of  the  imputation  of  their 
sins  to  him,  and  of  his  righteousness  to  them,  is  the  commu- 
nication of  his  Spirit,  the  same  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  him,  to 
them,  to  abide  in,  to  animate  and  guide  the  whole  mystical 
body  and  all  its  members.  But  this  has  of  late  been  so  much 
spoken  to,  that  I  shall  do  no  more  but  mention  it. 

On  the  considerations  insisted  on,  whereby  the  Lord  Christ 
became  one  mystical  person  with  the  church,  or  bare  the  per- 
son of  the  church  in  what  he  did  as  mediator,  in  the  holy,  wise 
disposal  of  God  as  the  author  of  the  law,  the  supreme  rector 
or  governor  of  all  mankind,  as  to  their  temporal  and  eternal 
concernments,  and  by  his  own  consent,  the  sins  of  all  the  elect 
were  imputed  to  him.  This,  having  been  the  faith  and  language 
of  the  Church  in  all  ages,  and  that  derived  from  and  founded 
in  express  testimonies  of  Scripture,  with  all  the  promises  and 
presignations  of  his  exhibition  in  the  flesh  from  the  beginning, 
cannot  now  with  any  modesty  be  expressly  denied.  Wherefore 
the  Socinians  themselves  grant  that  our  sins  may  be  said  to  be 
imputed  to  Christ,  and  he  to  undergo  the  punishment  of  them, 
so  far  as  that  all  things  which  befel  him  evil  and  afliictive  in 
this  life,  with  the  death  which  he  underwent,  were  occasioned 
by  our  sins.  For  had  not  we  sinned,  there  had  been  no  need 
of,  nor  occasion  for  his  suffering.  But  notwiihstanduig  this 
concession  they  expressly  deny  his  satisfaction,  or  that  properly 
he  underwent  the  punishment  due  to  our  sins;  wherein  they 
deny  also  all  imputation  of  them  to  him.  Others  say  that 
our  sins  were  imputed  to  him,  quoad  r e at uvi  p cense,  ViSio  the 
guilt  of  the  punishment,  but  not  quoad  reatum  culpse,  as  to 
the  guilt  of  the  fault.  But  I  must  acknowledge  that  to  me  this 
distinction  gives  inanem  sine  mente  sontcm,  an  empty  un- 
meaning sound.  The  substance  of  it  is  much  insisted  on  by 
Feuardentius,  Dialog.  5.  pag.  467.  And  he  is  followed  by 
others.     That  which  he  would  prove  by  it,  is,  that  the  Lord 


i 


224 


CONSEdUENCES    OF    CHRIST  S    BEING    ONE 


Christ  did  not  present  himself  before  the  throne  of  God,"wilh 
the  burden  of  our  sins  upon  him,  so  as  to  answer  to  the  justice 
of  God  for  them.  Whereas  therefore  reatus,  or  guiU,  may  sig- 
nify either  dignitutem  pcznse  or  ohligalionem  ad pcenam,  as 
Bellarmine  distinguishes,  de  Amiss.  Grat.  lib.  7.  cap.  7.  with 
respect  to  Christ,  the  latter  only  is  to  be  admitted.  And  the 
main  argument  he  and  others  insist  upon,  is  this;  that  if  our 
sins  be  imputed  to  Christ,  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  fault,  as  they 
speak,  then  he  must  be  polluted  with  them,  and  thence  be  de- 
nominated a  sinner  in  every  kind.  And  this  would  be  true,  if 
our  sins  could  be  communicated  to  Christ  by  transfusion,  so  as 
to  be  his  inherently  and  subjectively.  But  their  being  so  only 
by  imputation  gives  no  countenance  to  any  such  pretence. 
However  there  is  a  notion  of  legal  uncleanness,  where  there  is 
no  inherent  defilement.  So  the  priest  who  offered  the  red  heifer 
to  make  atonement,  and  he  that  burned  her,  were  said  to  be 
"  unclean,"  Numb.  xix.  7,  8.  But  hereon  they  say,  that  Christ 
died  and  suffered  upon  the  special  command  of  God,  not  that 
his  death  and  suffering  were  any  way  due  upon  the  account  of 
our  sins,  or  required  in  justice;  which  is  utterly  to  overthrow 
the  satisfaction  of  Christ. 

Wherefore  the  design  of  this  distinction,  is  to  deny  the  impu- 
tation of  the  guilt  of  our  sins  to  Christ;  and  then  in  what  toler- 
able setise  they  can  be  said  to  be  imputed  to  him,  I  cannot  un- 
derstand. But  we  are  not  tied  up  to  arbitrary  distinctions,  and 
the  sense  that  any  are  pleased  to  impose  on  the  terms  of  them. 
I  shall  therefore  first  inquire  into  the  meaning  of  these  words, 
guilt  and  guilty,  wherebj'  we  may  be  able  to  judge  of  what  it 
is,  which  in  this  distinction  is  intended. 

The  Hebrews  have  no  other  word  to  signify  guilt  or  guilty 
but  Dii-N.  And  this  they  use  both  for  sin,  the  guilt  of  it,  the  jjun- 
ishment  due  to  it,  and  a  sacrifice  for  it.  Speaking  of  the  guilt 
of  blood,  they  use  not  any  word  to  signify  guilt,  but  only  say  ^''c:"' 
it  is  "  blood  to  him."  So  David  prays  "  deliver  me  a^mn  from 
blood,"  which  we  render  "  blood-guiltiness,"  Psal.  li.  14.  And 
this  was  because  by  the  constitution  of  God,  he  that  was  guilty 
of  blood,  was  to  die  by  the  hand  of  the  magistrate,  or  of  God 
himself  But  o'^^i  Jischam  is  no  where  used  for  guilt,  but  it 
signifies  the  relation  of  the  sin  intended  to  punishment.  And 
other  significations  of  it  will  be  in  vain  sought  for  in  the  Old 
Testament. 

In  the  New  Testament,  he  that  is  guilty,  is  said  to  be  vitohixo^, 
Rom.  iii.  19,  that  is,  obnoxious  to  judgment  or  vengeance  for 


MYSTICAL    PERSON    WITH    THE    CHURCH. 


225 


sin;  one  that  -iy  Svxr;  ^r;v  ovx  itaasv,  as  they  speak,  Acts  xxviii.  4, 
whom  vengeance  will  not  sufl'er  to  go  unpunished.  And  ivoxou 
1  Cor.  xi.  27,  a  word  of  the  same  signification.  Once  by  oipsaco, 
Matth.  xxiii.  IS,  to  owe,  to  be  indebted  to  justice.  To  be  ob- 
noxious, liable  to  justice,  vengeance,  punishment  for  sin,  is  to 
be  guilty. 

Hens,  guilty,  in  (he  Latin,  is  of  a  large  signification.  He  who 
is  crimiyii  obnoxins,  o\'  pcenx  propter  crimen,  or  voti  debitor, 
ox proniissi,  or  officii  ex  sponsione,  is  called  reus.  Especially 
every  sponsor  or  surety,  is  reus  in  the  law.  Cum  servus  pe- 
cuniani  pro  libertute  pactus  est,  et  ob  eani  rem.,  reum  dederit, 
(that  is,  spoiisorem,  exproynissorem)  qiiamvis  servus  ab  alio 
97ia?iumissus  est,  reus  tamen  obligabitur.  He  is  reus  who 
engages  himself  for  any  other,  as  to  the  matter  of  his  engage- 
ment. And  the  same  is  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  best  Latin 
authors.  Opportuna  loca  dividend  a  Prefect  is  esse  ac  suse 
quisque partis  tutandse  reus  sit.  Liv.  de  Bello  Punic,  lib.  5. 
"  That  every  captain  should  so  take  care  of  the  station  commit- 
ted to  him,  as  that  if  any  thing  happened  amiss,  it  should  be 
imputed  to  him."  And  the  same  author  again,  at  quicunque 
aut  propinquitate  aut  affinitate  regiam  contigissent,  alienx 
culpse  rei  trucidarentur,  "  should  be  guilty  of  the  fault  of  an- 
other," (by  imputation)  "and  suffer  for  it."  So  that  in  the 
Latin  tongue  he  is  reus,  who  for  himself  or  any  other  is  ob- 
noxious to  punishment  or  payment. 

Reatus  is  a  word  of  late  admission  into  the  Latin  tongue, 
and  was  formed  oi  reus.  So  Quintilian  informs  us  in  his  dis- 
course on  the  use  of  obsolete  and  new  words,  lib.  8.  cap.  3. 
Quse  Vetera  nunc  sunt,  fuerunt  olim  nova;  qusedam  in  icsu 
perquam  recentia.  Messala  primus  re.atum,  munerarium 
t/iugustus  dixerunt;  to  which  lie  adds  piratica,  musica,  and 
some  others  then  newly  come  into  use.  But  reatus  at  its  first 
invention  was  of  no  such  signification  as  it  is  now  applied  to. 
I  mention  it  only  to  show,  that  we  have  no  reason  to  be 
obliged  to  men's  arbitrary  use  of  words.  Some  lawyers  first 
used  ii,  pro  crimine,  a  fault,  exposing  to  punishment.  But  the 
original  invention  of  it  continued  by  long  use,  was  to  express 
the  outward  state  and  condition  of  him  who  was  reus,  after  he 
was  first  charged  in  a  cause  criminal,  before  he  was  acquitted 
or  condemned.  Those  among  the  Romans  who  were  made 
rei  by  any  public  accusation,  betook  themselves  to  a  poor, 
squalid  habit,  a  sorrowful  countenance,  suffering  their  hair  and 
beards  to  go  undressed;  hereby  on  custom  and  usage,  the  people 


226  CONSEQUENCES    OF    CHRISt's    BEING    ONE 

who  were  to  judge  on  their  cause,  were  inclined  to  compassion. 
And  Milo  furthered  his  sentence  of  banishment,  because  he 
would  not  submit  to  this  custom  which  iiad  such  an  appear- 
ance of  pusillanimity  and  baseness  of  spirit.  This  state  of  sor- 
row and  trouble  so  expressed,  they  called  reatus  and  nothing 
else.  It  came  afterwards  to  denote  their  state  who  were  com- 
mitted to  custody  in  order  to  their  trial,  when  the  government 
ceased  to  be  popular,  wiierein  alone  the  other  artifice  was  of 
use.  And  if  this  word  be  of  any  use  in  our  present  argument, 
it  is  to  express  the  state  of  men  after  conviction  of  sin,  before 
their  justification.  That  is  their  reatus,  the  condition  wherein 
the  proudest  of  them  cannot  avoid  to  express  their  inward  sor- 
row and  anxiety  of  mind,  by  some  outward  evidences  of  them. 
Beyond  this  we  are  not  obliged  by  the  use  of  this  word,  but 
must  consider  tiie  thing  itself  which  now  we  intend  to  express 
thereby. 

Guilt,  in. the  Scripture,  is  the  respect  of  sin  to  the  sanction 
of  the  Law,  whereby  the  sinner  becomes  obnoxious  to  punish- 
ment. And  to  be  guilty  is  to  be  vTiobixo^  tu>  ®iu,  liable  to  pun- 
ishment for  sin,  from  God,  as  the  supreme  Lawgiver  and  Judge 
of  all.  And  so  guilt  or  reatus  is  well  defined  to  be  obligatio  ad 
poenam,  propter  culpam,  aut  admissam  in  se,  aut  impxitatam, 
juste  aut  injuste.  For  so  Bathsheba  says  to  David,  that  she  and 
her  son  Solomon  should  be  □■•Nan  "  sinners,''  that  is,  be  esteem- 
ed guilty  or  liable  to  punishment  for  some  evil  laid  to  their 
charge,  1  Kings  i.  21.  And  the  distinction  o{  dignitas  pcense, 
and  obligatio  ad posnani,  is  but  the  same  thing  in  divers  words. 
For  both  do  but  express  the  relation  of  sin  to  the  sanction  of 
the  law,  or  if  they  may  be  conceived  to  differ,  yet  are  they  in- 
separable, for  there  can  be  no  obligatio  ad  pcenam,  where 
there  is  no  dignitas  poense. 

Much  less  is  there  any  thing  of  weight  in  the  distinction  of 
reatus  culpx  and  reatus  pcense.  For  this  reatus  culpas  is  no- 
thing but  dignitas  pcense  propter  culpani.  Sin  has  other  consi- 
derations, namely,  its  formal  nature,  as  it  is  a  transgression  of 
the  law;  and  the  stain  or  filth  that  it  brings  upon  the  soul;  but 
the  guilt  of  it  is  nothing  but  its  respect  to  punishment  from 
the  sanction  of  the  law.  And  so  indeed  reatus  culpse,  is  rea- 
tus poense;  the  guilt  of  sin,  is  its  desert  of  punishment.  And 
where  there  is  not  this  reatus  culpse,  there  can  be  wo  poena,  no 
punishment  properly  so  called.  For  poena  is  vindicta  noxse, 
the  revenge  due  to  sin.  So  therefore  there  can  be  no  punish- 
ment, nor  reatus  poense,  the  guilt  of  it,  but  where  there  is  rea- 


MYSTICAL    PERSON    WITH   THE    CHURCH.  227 

tun  ellipse,  or  sin  considered  with  its  guilt.  And  the  reatus 
poense,  that  may  be  supposed  without  the  guilt  of  sin,  is  nothing 
but  that  obnoxionsness  to  afflictive  evil  on  the  occasion  of  sin, 
which  the  Socinians  admit  with  respect  to  the  suffering  of 
Christ,  and  yet  execrate  his  satisfaction. 

And  if  this  distinction  should  be  apprehended  to  be  of  rea- 
tus, from  its  formal  respect  to  sin  and  punishment,  it  must  in 
both  parts  of  the  distinction  be  of  the  same  signification,  other- 
wise there  is  an  equivocation  in  the  subject  of  it.  But  reatus 
pcenae  is  a  liableiiess,  an  obnoxionsness  to  punishment,  accord- 
ing to  the  sentence  of  the  law;  that  whereby  a  sinner  becomes 
irtoStzoj  tut  0£aj.  And  then  reatus  culpai  must  be  an  obnoxions- 
ness to  sin,  which  is  uncouth.  There  is  therefore  no  imputa- 
tion of  sin,  where  there  is  no  imputation  of  its  guilt.  For  the 
guilt  of  punishment,  which  is  not  its  respect  to  the  desert  of 
sin,  is  a  plain  fiction;  there  is  no  such  thing  in  rerum  natura. 
There  is  no  guilt  of  sin,  but  its  relation  to  punishment. 

That  therefore  which  we  affirm  herein  is;  that  our  sins  were 
so  transferred  to  Christ,  that  thereby  he  bicame  a"^»<  vnohixo^ 
tu>  0£w,  i?ez«5,  responsible  to  God,  and  obnoxious  to  punishment 
in  the  justice  of  God  for  them.  He  was  alienee  culpse  reus, 
perfectly  innocent  in  himself;  but  took  our  guilt  on  him,  or 
our  obnoxionsness  to  punishment  for  sin.  And  so  he  may  be, 
and  may  be  said  to  be  the  greatest  debtor  in  the  world  who 
never  borrowed  nor  owed  one  farthing  on  his  own  account,  if 
he  become  surety  for  the  greatest  debt  of  others.  So  Paul  be- 
came a  debtor  to  Philemon,  upon  his  undertaking  for  Onesimus, 
who  before  owed  him  nothing. 

And  two  things  concurred  to  this  imputation  of  sin  to  Christ. 
(1)  The  act  of  God  imputing  it.  (2)  Tlie  voluntary  act  of 
Christ  himself  in  the  undertaking  of  it,  or  admitting  of  the 
charge. 

1.  The  act  of  God  in  this  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  our  sins 
to  Christ,  is  expressed  by  his  laying  all  our  iniquities  upon  him, 
making  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  and  the  like. 
For  (1)  as  the  supreme  governor,  lawgiver,  and  judge  of  all, 
to  whom  it  belonged  to  take  care  that  his  holy  law  was  ob- 
served, or  the  offenders  punished,  he  admitted  upon  the  trans- 
gression of  it,  the  sponsion  and  suretyship  of  Christ  to  answer 
for  the  sins  of  men,  Heb.  x.  5 — 7.  (2)  In  order  to  this  end,  he 
made  him  under  the  law,  or  gave  the  law  power  over  him,  to 
demand  of  him,  and  inflict  on  him  the  penalty  which  was  due 
to  the  sins  of  them  for  whom  he  undertook,  Gal.  iii.  13;  iv.  4, 


228  CONSECIUENCES    OF    CHRISt's     BEING    ONE 

5,  (3)  For  the  declaration  of  the  righteousness  of  God  in  this 
setting  forth  of  Christ  to  be  a  propitiation,  and  to  bear  our  ini- 
quities, the  guilt  of  our  sins  was  transferred  to  him  in  an  act  of 
the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  accepting  and  esteeming  of  him 
as  the  guilty  person;  as  it  is  with  public  sureties  in  every  case. 

2.  The  Lord  Christ's  voluntary  snsception  of  the  state  and 
condition  of  a  surety,  or  undertaker  for  the  church,  to  appear 
before  the  throne  of  God's  justice  for  them,  to  answer  whatever 
was  laid  to  their  charge,  was  required  hereto.  And  this  he  did 
absolutely.  There  was  a  concurrence  of  his  own  will  in  and 
to  all  those  divine  acts  whereby  he  and  the  Church  were  con- 
stituted one  mystical' person.  And  of  his  own  love  and  grace 
did  he  as  our  surety  stand  in  our  stead  before  God,  when  he 
made  inquisition  for  sin;  he  took  it  on  himself,  as  to  the  pun- 
ishment which  it  deserved.  Hence  it  became  just  and  right- 
eous that  he  should  suffer,  *'the  just  for  the  unjust  that  he 
miglit  bring  us  unto  God."  For  if  this  be  not  so,  I  desire  to 
know  what  is  become  of  the  guilt  of  the  sins  of  believers;  if  it 
were  not  transferred  to  Christ,  it  remains  still  upon  themselves, 
or  it  is  nothing.  It  will  be  said  that  guilt  is  taken  away  by  the 
free  pardon  of  sin.  But  if  so,  there  was  no  need  of  punishment 
for  it  at  all;  which  is  indeed  what  the  Socinians  plead,  but  by 
others  is  not  admitted.  For  if  punishment  be  not  for  guilt,  it 
is  not  punishment. 

But  it  is  fiercely  objected  against  what  we  have  asserted, 
that  if  the  guilt  of  our  sins  was  imputed  to  Christ,  then  was  he 
constituted  a  sinner  thereby;  for  it  is  the  guilt  of  sin  that  makes 
any  one  to  be  truly  a  sinner.  This  is  urged  by  Bellarmine;  lib, 
2.  de  Justificat,  not  for  its  own  sake,  but  to  disprove  the  imputa- 
tion of  his  righteousness  to  us,  as  it  is  continued  by  others  v/ith 
the  same  design.  For,  saith  he,  "  if  we  be  made  righteous, 
and  the  children  of  God  through  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  then  was  he  made  a  sinner,  et  quod  horret 
animus  co git  are,  films  Diaboli,  by  the  imputation  of  the  guilt 
of  our  sins,  or  our  unrighteousness  to  him,"  And  the  same  ob- 
jection is  pressed  by  others,  with  instances  of  consequences, 
which  for  many  reasons  I  heartily  wish  had  been  forborne. 
But  I  answer, 

1.  Nothing  is  more  absolutely  true,  nothing  is  more  sacredly 
or  assuredly  believed  by  us,  than,  that  nothing  which  Christ 
did  or  suffered,  nothing  that  he  undertook  or  underwent,  did  or 
could  constitute  him,  subjectively,  inherently,  and  thereon  per- 
sonally a  sinner,  or  guilty  of  any  sin  of  his  own.     To  bear  the 


MYSTICAL    PERSON    WITH    THE    CHURCH.  229 

guilt  or  blame  of  other  men's  faults,  to  be  aliensR  culpse  reus, 
makes  no  man  a  sinner,  unless  he  did  unwisely  or  irregularly 
undertake  it.  But  that  Christ  should  admit  of  any  thing  of  sin 
in  himself,  as  it  is  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  hypostatical 
union,  so  it  would  render  him  unmeet  for  all  other  duties  of  his 
office,  Heb.  vii.  25,26.  And  I  confess  it  has  always  seemed 
scandalous  to  me,  that  Socinus,  Crellius,  and  Grotius  grant 
that  in  some  sense  Christ  offered  for  his  own  sins,  and  would 
prove  it  from  that  very  place  wherein  it  is  positively  denied, 
Heb.  vii.  27.  This  ought  to  be  sacredly  fixed,  and  not  a  word 
used,  nor  thought  entertained  of  any  possibility  of  the  contrary, 
upon  any  supposition  whatever. 

2.  None  ever  dreamed  of  a  transfusion  or  propagation  of  sin 
from  us  to  Christ,  such  as  there  was  from  Adam  to  us.  For 
Adam  was  a  common  person  to  us,  we  are  not  so  to  Christ; 
yea  he  is  so  to  us;  and  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  him,  is  a 
singular  act  of  divine  dispensation,  which  no  evil  consequence 
can  ensue  upon. 

3.  To  imagine  such  an  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  as 
that  thereon  they  should  cease  to  be  our  sins,  and  become  his 
absolutely,  is  to  overthrow  that  which  is  affirmed.  For  on  that 
supposition  Christ  would  not  suffer  for  our  sins,  for  they  ceased 
to  be  ours,  antecedently  to  his  suffering.  But  the  guilt  of  them 
was  so  transferred  to  him,  that  through  his  suffering  for  it,  it 
might  be  pardoned  to  us. 

These  things  being  premised,  I  say, 

1.  There  is  in  sin  a  transgression  of  the  preceptive  part  of 
the  law,  and  there  is  an  obnoxiousness  to  the  punishment  from 
the  sanction  of  it.  It  is  the  first  that  gives  sin  its  formal  nature, 
and  where  that  is  not  subjectively,  no  person  can  be  constituted 
formally  a  sinner.  However  any  one  may  be  so  denominated 
as  to  some  certain  end  or  purpose,  yet  without  this,  formally  a 
sinner  none  can  be,  whatever  be  imputed  to  him.  And  where 
that  is,  no  non-imputation  of  sin  as  to  punishment,  can  free  the 
person  in  whom  it  is,  from  being  formally  a  sinner.  When 
Bathsheba  told  David  that  she  and  her  son  Solomon  should  be 
Q^Nan  "sinners,"  by  having  crimes  laid  to  their  charge;  and 
when  Judah  told  Jacob,  that  he  would  be  a  "  sinner  before  him 
always"  on  account  of  any  evil  that  befel  Benjamin,  (it  should 
be  imputed  to  him)  yet  neither  of  them  could  thereby  be  con- 
stituted a  sinner  formally.  And  on  the  other  hand,  when  Shimei 
desired  David  not  to  impute  sin  to  him,  whereby  he  escaped 
present  punishment,  yet  did  not  that  non-imputation  free  him 

20 


230  CONSEQUENCES   OF   CHRISt's     BEING    ONE 

formally  from  being  a  sinner.  Wherefore  sin  under  this  con- 
sideration as  a  transgression  of  the  preceptive  part  of  the  law, 
cannot  be  communicated  from  one  to  another,  unless  it  be  by 
the  propagation  of  a  vitiated  principle  or  habit.  But  yet  neither 
so  will  the  personal  sin  of  one  as  inherent  in  him,  ever  come  to 
be  the  personal  sin  of  another.  Adam  has  upon  his  personal 
sin  communicated  a  vicious,  depraved,  and  corrupted  nature  to 
all  his  posterity;  and  besides,  the  guilt  of  his  actual  sin  is  im- 
puted to  them,  as  if  it  had  been  committed  by  every  one  of 
them.  But  yet  his  particular  personal  sin,  neither  ever  did, 
nor  ever  could  become  the  personal  sin  of  anyone  of  them,  any 
otherwise  than  by  the  imputation  of  its  guilt  to  them.  Where- 
fore our  sins  neither  are,  nor  can  be  so  imputed  to  Christ,  as 
that  they  should  become  subjectively  his,  as  they  are  a  trans- 
gression of  the  preceptive  part  of  the  law.  A  physical  transla- 
tion or  transfusion  of  sin  is  in  this  case  naturally  and  spiritually 
impossible;  and  yet  on  a  supposition  thereof  alone,  do  the  hor- 
rid consequences  mentioned  depend.  Bat  the  guilt  of  sin  is 
an  external  respect  of  it,  with  regard  to  the  sanction  of  the  law 
only.  This  is  separable  from  sin,  and  if  it  were  not  so,  no  one 
sinner  could  either  be  pardoned  or  saved.  It  may  therefore  be 
made  another's  by  imputation,  and  yet  that  other  not  rendered 
formally  a  sinner  thereby.  This  was  that  which  was  imputed 
to  Christ,  whereby  he  was  rendered  obnoxious  to  the  curse 
of  the  law.  For  it  was  impossible  that  the  law  should  pro- 
nounce any  accursed  but  the  guilty;  nor  would  do  so,  Deut. 
xxvii.  26. 

2.  There  is  a  great  difference  between  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  to  us,  and  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to 
Christ:  so  as  that  he  cannot  in  the  same  manner  be  said  to  be 
made  a  sinner  by  the  one,  as  we  are  made  righteous  by  the 
other.  For  our  sin  was  imputed  to  Christ  only,  as  he  was  our 
surety  for  a  time;  to  this  end,  that  he  might  take  it  away,  de- 
stroy it  and  abolish  it.  It  was  never  miputed  to  him,  so  as  to 
make  any  alteration  absolutely  in  his  personal  state  and  condi- 
tion. But  his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us,  to  abide  with  us, 
to  be  ours  always,  and  to  make  a  total  change  in  our  state  and 
condition  as  to  our  relation  to  God.  Our  sin  was  imputed  to 
him,  only  for  a  season,  not  absolutely,  but  as  he  was  a  surety, 
and  to  the  special  end  of  destroying  it;  and  taken  on  him,  on 
this  condition  that  his  righteousness  should  be  made  ours  for 
ever.  All  things  are  otherwise  in  the  imputation  of  his  right- 
eousness to  us,  which  respects  us  absolutely,  and  not  under 


MYSTICAL    PERSON    WITH    THE    CHURCH.  231 

a  temporary  capacity,  abides  with  us  for  ever,  changes  our 
state  and  relation  to  God,  and  is  an  effect  of  superabounding 
grace. 

But  it  will  be  said,  that  if  our  sins  as  to  the  guilt  of  them 
were  imputed  to  Christ,  then  God  must  hate  Christ;  for  he 
hateth  the  guilty.  I  know  not  well  how  I  come  to  mention 
these  things,  which  indeed  I  look  upon  as  cavils,  such  as  men 
may  multiply  if  they  please,  against  any  part  of  the  mysteries 
of  the  gospel.  But  seeing  it  is  mentioned,  it  may  be  spoken  to. 
And 

(1)  It  is  certain  that  the  Lord  Christ's  taking  on  him  the  guilt 
of  our  sins,  was  a  high  act  of  obedience  to  God,  Heb.  x.  5,  6; 
and  for  which  the  Father  loved  him,  John  x.  17,  18.  There 
was  therefore  no  reason  why  God  should  hate  Christ,  for  his 
taking  on  him  our  debt  and  the  payment  of  it,  in  an  act  of  the 
highest  obedience  to  his  will.  (2)  God  in  this  matter  is  consider- 
ed as  a  rector,  ruler  and  judge.  Now  it  is  not  required  of  the  se- 
verest judge,  that  as  a  judge  he  should  hate  the  guilty  person,  no, 
although  he  be  guilty  originally  by  inhesion  and  not  by  impu- 
tation. As  such,  he  has  no  more  to  do,  but  consider  the  guilt, 
and  pronounce  the  sentence  of  punishment.  But  (3)  suppose 
a  person  out  of  an  heroic  generosity  of  mind  should  become  an 
Avti-^vxoi  for  another,  for  his  friend,  for  a  good  man,  so  as  to 
answer  for  him  with  his  life,  as  Judah  undertook  to  be  for  Ben- 
jamin as  to  his  liberty,  which  when  a  man  has  lost,  he  is  civil- 
ly dead,  and  capite  diminiitus; — would  the  most  cruel  tyrant 
under  heaven  that  should  take  away  his  life,  in  that  case,  hate 
him?  would  he  not  rather  admire  his  worth  and  virtue?  As 
such  an  one  it  was  that  Christ  suffered,  and  no  otherwise.  (4) 
All  the  force  of  this  exception  depends  on  the  ambiguity  of  the 
word  hate.  For  it  may  signify  either  an  aversion  or  detesta- 
tion of  mind,  or  only  a  will  of  punishing,  as  in  God  mostly  it 
does.  In  the  first  sense  there  was  no  ground  why  God  should 
hate  Christ  on  this  imputation  of  guilt  to  him;  whereby  he  be- 
came non  proprix  sed  aliense  culpse  reus.  Sin  inherent  ren- 
ders the  soul  polluted,  abominable,  and  the  only  object  of  di- 
vine aversion.  But  for  him  who  was  perfectly  innocent,  holy, 
harmless,  undefiled  in  himself,  who  did  no  sin,  neither  was 
there  guile  found  in  his  mouth,  to  take  upon  him  the  guilt  of 
others'  sins,  thereby  to  comply  with  and  accomplish  the  design 
of  God  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory  and  infinite  wisdom, 
grace,  goodness,  mercy,  and  righteousness,  to  the  certain  expia- 
tion and  destruction  of  sin,  nothing  could  render  him  more  glo- 


232  CONSEQUENCES    OF    CHRISt's    BEING    ONE 

rious  and  lovely  in  the  sight  of  God  or  man.  But  for  a  will  of 
punishing  in  God,  where  sin  is  imputed,  none  can  deny  it,  but 
they  must  therewith  openly  disavow  the  satisfaction  of  Christ. 
The  heads  of  some  few  of  those  arguments  wherewith  the 
truth  we  have  asserted  is  confirmed,  shall  close  this  discourse. 

1.  Unless  the  guilt  of  sin  was  imputed  to  Christ,  sin  was  not 
imputed  to  him  in  any  sense;  for  the  punishment  of  sin  is  not 
sin;  nor  can  those  who  are  otherwise  minded,  declare  what  it 
is  of  sin,  that  is  imputed.  But  the  Scripture  is  plain,  that  "God 
laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all;"  and  made  him  to  be  sin  for 
us,  which  could  not  otherwise  be  but  by  imputation. 

2.  There  can  be  no  punishment  but  with  respect  to  the  guilt 
of  sin  personally  contracted,  or  imputed.  It  is  guilt  alone  that 
gives  what  is  materially  evil  and  afflictive  the  formal  nature  of 
punishment,  and  nothing  else.  And  therefore  those  who  under- 
stand full  well  the  harmony  of  things  and  opinions,  and  are 
free  to  express  their  minds,  constantly  declare,  that  if  one  of 
these  be  denied,  the  other  must  be  so  also ;  and  if  one  be  admit- 
ted they  must  both  be  so.  If  guilt  was  not  imputed  to  Christ, 
he  could  not,  as  they  plead  well  enough,  undergo  the  punish- 
ment of  sin;  much  he  might  do  and  suffer  on  the  occasion  of 
sin,  but  undergo  the  punishment  due  to  sin  he  could  not.  And 
if  it  should  be  granted  that  the  guilt  of  sin  was  imputed  to  him, 
they  will  not  deny  but  that  he  underwent  the  punishment  of  it; 
and  if  he  underwent  the  punishment  of  it,  they  will  not  deny 
but  that  the  guilt  of  it  was  imputed  to  him;  for  these  things  are 
inseparably  related. 

3.  Christ  was  made  a  "curse  for  us,"  the  curse  of  the  law; 
as  is  expressly  declared.  Gal.  iii.  13,  14.  But  the  curse  of  the 
law  respects  the  guilt  of  sin  only;  so  that  where  that  is  not, 
it  cannot  take  place  in  any  sense,  and  where  that  is,  it  insepa- 
rably attends  it,  Deut.  xxvii.  26, 

4.  The  express  testimonies  of  the  Scripture  to  this  purpose 
cannot  be  evaded,  without  an  open  wresting  of  their  words  and 
sense.  So  God  is  said  to  make  all  our  iniquities  to  meet  upon 
him;  and  he  bare  them  on  him  as  his  burden,  for  so  the  word 
signifies,  Isa.  liii.  6.  "  God  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity,"  that 
is,  the  guilt  "  of  us  all,"  ver.  11;"  and  their  sin  (or  guilt)  shall 
he  bear."  For  that  is  the  intendment  of  vv,  where  joined  with 
any  other  word  that  denotes  sin  as  it  is  in  those  places;  Psal. 
xxxii.  5;  "  thou  forgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  sin,"  that  is,  the 
guilt  of  it,  which  is  that  alone  that  is  taken  away  by  pardon. 
So  we  read  that "  his  soul  was  made  an  offering  for  the  guilt  of 


MYSTICAL    PERSON    WITH    THE    CHURCH.  233 

sin,"  "  that  he  was  made  sin,"  "  that  sin  was  condemned  in  his 
flesh,"  &c. 

5.  This  was  represented  in  all  the  sacrifices  of  old,  especially 
the  great  anniversary  on  the  day  of  expiation,  with  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  scape  goat,  as  has  been  before  declared. 

6.  Without  a  supposition  hereof  it  cannot  be  understood,  how 
the  Lord  Christ  should  be  our  Avu^i^vxoi  or  sutfer  avtv  o^^wi/,  m. 
our  stead,  unless  we  will  admit  the  exposition  of  Mr.  Ho,  a  late  ^ 
writer,  who  reckoning  up  how  many  things  the  Lord  Christ  did 
in  our  stead,  adds  as  the  sense  thereof,  that  is  "  to  bestead  us;" 
than  which  if  he  can  invent  any  thing  more  fond  and  sense- 
less, he  has  a  singular  faculty  in  such  an  employment. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  FORMAL  CAUSK  OF  JUSTIFICATION;  OR,  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  ON 
ACCOUNT  OF  WHICH  BELIEVERS  ARE  JUSTIFIED  BEFORE  GOD.  OBJEC- 
TIONS   ANSWERED, 

The  principal  differences  about  the  doctrine  of  justification  are 
reducible  to  three  heads,  (1)  The  nature  of  it;  namely,  whether 
it  consists  in  an  internal  change  of  the  person  justified  by  the 
infusion  of  a  habit  of  inherent  grace  or  righteousness ;  or  whether 
it  be  a  forensic  act,  in  the  judging,  esteeming,  declaring,  and 
pronouncing  such  a  person  to  be  righteous,  thereon  absolving 
him  from  all  his  sins,  giving  to  him  right  and  title  to  life.  Here- 
in we  have  to  do  only  with  those  of  the  Church  of  Rome;  all 
others,  both  Protestants  and  Socinians,  being  agreed  on  the 
forensic  sense  of  the  word,  and  the  nature  of  the  thing  signi- 
fied thereby.  And  this  I  have  already  spoken  to,  so  far  as  our 
present  design  requires,  and  that  I  hope  with  such  evidence  of 
truth,  as  cannot  well  be  gainsaid.  Nor  may  it  be  supposed 
that  we  have  too  long  insisted  thereon,  as  an  opinion  which  is 
obsolete,  and  long  since  sutiiciently  confuted.  I  think  much 
otherwise,  and  that  those  who  avoid  the  Romanists  in  these 
controversies,  will  give  a  greater  appearance  of  fear,  than  of 
contempt.  For  when  all  is  done,  if  free  justification  through 
the  blood  of  Christ  and  the  imputation  ot  his  righteousness,  be 
not  able  to  preserve  its  station,  in  the  minds  of  men,  the  Popish 
doctrine  of  justification  must  and  will  return  upon  the  world, 

20* 


234  THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OP    JUSTIFICATION. 

with  all  the  concomitants  and  consequences  of  it.  Whilst  any 
knowledge  of  the  law  or  gospel  is  continued  amongst  us,  the 
consciences  of  men  will  at  one  time  or  other,  living  or  dying,  be 
really  affected  with  a  sense  of  sin,  as  to  its  guilt  and  danger. 
Hence  that  trouble  and  those  disquietments  of  mind  will  ensue, 
which  will  force  men,  be  they  never  so  unwilling,  to  seek  after 
some  relief  and  satisfaction.  And  what  will  not  men  attempt, 
who  are  reduced  to  the  condition  expressed?  Micah  vi.  7,  8. 
Wherefore  in  this  case,  if  the  true  and  only  relief  of  distressed 
consciences  of  sinners  who  are  weary  and  heavy  laden,  be  hid 
from  their  eyes;  if  they  have  no  apprehension  of,  nor  trust  in  that 
which  alone  they  may  oppose  to  the  sentence  of  the  law,  and 
interpose  between  God's  justice  and  their  souls,  wherein  they 
may  take  shelter  from  the  storms  of  that  wrath  which  abides 
on  them  that  believe  not;  they  will  betake  themselves  to  any 
thing  which  confidently  tenders  them  present  ease  and  relief. 
Hence  many  persons  living  all  their  days  in  an  ignorance  of 
the  righteousness  of  God,  are  oftentimes  on  their  sick  beds,  and 
in  their  dying  hours,  proselyted  to  a  confidence  in  the  ways  of 
rest  and  peace,  which  the  Romanists  impose  upon  them.  For 
such  seasons  of  advantage  do  they  wait  for,  to  the  reputation 
as  they  suppose  of  their  own  zeal,  in  truth  to  the  scandal  of  the 
Christian  religion.  But  finding  at  any  time  the  consciences  of 
men  under  disquietments,  and  ignorant  of,  or  disbelieving  that 
heavenly  relief  which  is  provided  in  the  gospel,  they  are  ready 
with  their  applications  and  medicines,  having  on  them  pretend- 
ed approbations  of  the  experience  of  many  ages,  and  an  innu- 
merable company  of  devout  souls  in  them.  Such  is  their  doc- 
trine of  justification,  with  the  addition  of  those  other  ingredients 
of  confession,  absolution,  penances  or  commutations,  aids  from 
saints  and  angels,  especially  the  blessed  Virgin,  all  warmed  by 
the  fire  of  purgatory,  and  confidently  administered  to  persons, 
sick  of  ignorance,  darkness  and  sin.  And  let  none  please  them- 
selves in  the  contempt  of  these  things.  If  the  truth  concerning 
evangelical  justification  be  once  disbelieved  among  us,  or  oblit- 
erated by  any  artifices,  out  of  the  minds  of  men,  to  these  things 
at  one  time  or  other,  they  must  and  will  betake  themselves. 
For  the  new  schemes  and  projections  of  the  justification  which 
some  at  present  would  supply  us  with,  are  no  way  suited,  nor 
able  to  give  relief  or  satisfaction  to  a  conscience  really  troubled 
for  sin,  and  seriously  inquiring  how  it  may  have  rest  and  peace 
with  God.  I  shall  take  the  boldness  therefore  to  say,  whoever 
be  offended  at  it,  that  if  we  lose  the  ancient  doctrine  of  justifi- 


IsSnt 


■•>^" 


THE   FORMAL    CAUSE   OP    JUSTIFICATION.  235 


cation  through  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  imputation 
of  his  righteousness  to  us,  public  profession  of  religion  will 
quickly  issue  in  popery  or  atheism,  or  at  least  in  what  is  the 
next  door  to  it. 

The  second  principal  controversy  is  about  the  formal  cause 
of  justification,  as  it  is  expressed  and  stated  by  those  of  the 
Roman  church.  And  under  these  terms  some  Protestant  di- 
vines have  consented  to  debate  the  matter  in  difference.  I  shall 
not  interpose  into  a  strife  of  words.  So  the  Romanists  will  call 
that  which  we  inquire  after.  Some  of  ours  say,  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  imputed;  some,  the  imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  is  the  formal  cause  of  our  justification;  some, 
that  there  is  no  formal  cause  of  justification,  but  this  is  that 
which  supplies  the  place  and  use  of  a  formal  cause,  which  is 
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  In  none  of  these  things  will  I  con- 
cern myself,  though  I  judge  what  was  mentioned  in  the  last 
place,  to  be  most  proper  and  significant. 

The  substance  of  the  inquiry  wherein  alone  we  are  concern- 
ed is,  what  is  that  righteousness  whereby,  and  wherewith,  a 
believing  sinner  is  justified  before  God;  or  whereon  he  is  ac- 
cepted with  God,  has  his  sins  pardoned,  is  received  into  grace 
and  favour,  and  has  a  title  given  him  to  the  heavenly  inherit- 
ance ?  I  shall  no  otherwise  propose  this  inquiry,  as  knowing 
that  it  contains  the  substance  of  what  convinced  sinners  look 
after  in  and  by  the  gospel. 

And  herein  it  is  agreed  by  all,  the  Socinians  only  excepted, 
that  the  primary  or  procuring  cause  of  the  pardon  of  our  sins, 
and  acceptance  with  God,  is  the  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ. 
Howbeit  it  cannot  be  denied,  but  that  some  retaining  the  names 
of  them,  seem  to  renounce  or  disbelieve  the  things  themselves. 
But  we  need  not  to  take  any  notice  thereof,  until  they  are  free 
more  plainly  to  express  their  minds.  But  as  concerning  the 
righteousness  itself  inquired  after,  there  seems  to  be  a  difference 
among  them,  who  yet  all  deny  it  to  be  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  imputed  to  us.  For  those  of  the  Roman  church  plainly 
say,  that  upon  the  infusion  of  a  habit  of  grace,  with  the  expul- 
sion of  sin  and  the  renovation  of  our  natures  thereby,  which 
they  call  the  first  justification,  we  are  actually  justified  before 
God,  by  our  own  works  of  righteousness.  Hereon  they  dispute 
about  the  merit  and  satifactoriness  of  those  works,  with  their 
condignity  of  the  reward  of  eternal  life.  Others  as  the  Socinians 
openly  disclaim  all  merit  in  our  works;  only  some,  out  of  reve- 
rence as  I  suppose,  to  the  antiquity  of  the  word,  and  under  the 


236  THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

shelter  of  the  ambiguity  of  its  signification,  have  faintly  at- 
tempted ail  accommodation  with  it.  But  in  the  substance  of 
what  they  assent  to  this  purpose,  to  the  best  of  my  understand- 
ing, they  are  aU  agreed.  For  what  the  Papists  call  Justitia 
operum,  "  the  righteousness  of  works,"  they  call  a  personal 
inherent  evangelical  righteousness,  whereof  we  have  spoken 
before.  And  whereas  the  Papists  say,  that  this  righteousness 
of  works  is  not  absolutely  perfect,  nor  in  itself  able  to  justify  us 
in  the  sight  of  God,  but  owes  all  its  worth  and  dignity  for  this 
purpose  to  the  merit  of  Christ,  they  affirm  that  this  evangelical 
righteousness  is  the  condition  whereon  we  enjoy  the  benefits 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  in  the  pardon  of  our  sins,  and  the 
acceptance  of  our  persons  before  God.  But  as  to  those  who 
will  acknowledge  no  other  righteousness  wherewith  we  are 
justified  before  God,  the  meaning  is  the  same,  whether  we  say 
that  on  the  condition  of  this  righteousness  we  are  made  par- 
takers of  the  benefits  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ;  or  that 
it  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  which  makes  this  righteousness 
of  ours  accepted  with  God.  But  these  things  nmst  afterwards 
more  particularly  be  inquired  into. 

3.  The  third  inquiry  wherein  there  is  not  an  agreement  in 
this  matter  is,  upon  a  supposition  of  a  necessity,  that  he  who  is 
to  be  justified,  should  one  way  or  other  be  interested  in  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  what  it  is  that  on  our  part  is  required 
thereto.  This  some  say  to  be  faith  alone,  others  faith  and 
works  also,  and  that  in  the  same  kind  of  necessity  and  use. 
What  we  at  present  undertake  to  consider,  is  the  second  thing 
proposed.  And  indeed,  herein  lies  the  substance  of  the  whole 
controversy  about  our  justification  before  God,  upon  the  deter- 
mination and  stating  whereof,  the  determination  of  all  other 
incident  questions  depends. 

This  therefore  is  that  which  herein  I  aflirm  :  The  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  (in  his  obedience  and  suffering  for  us)  imputed 
to  believers,  as  they  arc  united  to  him  l)y  his  Spirit,  is  that 
righteousness  ivhcreon  they  are  justified  before  God,  on  ac- 
count whereof  their  sins  are  pardoned,  and  a  right  is  grant- 
ed them  to  the  heavenly  inheritance. 

This  position  is  such  as  wherein  the  substance  of  that  doc- 
trine in  this  important  article  of  evangelical  truth  which  we 
plead  for,  is  plauily  and  fully  expressed.  And  I  have  chosen 
the  rather  thus  to  express  it,  because  it  is  that  thesis  wherein 
the  learned  Davenant  laid  down  that  common  doctrine  of  the 
reformed  churches  whose  defence  he  undertook.     This  is  the 


THE    FORMAL   CAUSE    OP   JUSTIFICATION.  237 

shield  of  truth  in  the  whole  cause  of  justification,  which  whilst 
it  is  preserved  safe,  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves  about  the 
differences  that  are  among  learned  men,  about  the  most  proper 
stating  and  declaration  of  some  lesser  concernments  of  it.  This 
is  the  refuge,  the  only  refuge  of  distressed  consciences,  wherein 
they  may  find  rest  and  peace. 

For  the  confirmation  of  this  assertion,  I  shall  do  these  three 
things.    (1)  Reflect  on  what  is  needful  to  the  explanation  of  it. 

(2)  Answer  the  most  important  general  objections  against  it. 

(3)  Prove  the  truth  of  it  by  arguments  and  testimonies  of  the 
Holy  Scripture. 

As  to  the  first  of  these,  or  what  is  necessary  to  the  explana- 
tion of  this  assertion,  it  has  been  sufficiently  spoken  to  in  our 
foregoing  discourses.  The  heads  of  some  things  only  shall  at 
present  be  called  over. 

1.  The  foundation  of  the  imputation  asserted  is,  union. 
Hereof  there  are  many  grounds  and  causes  as  has  been  de- 
clared. But  that  which  we  have  immediate  respect  to  as  the 
foundation  of  this  imputation,  is  that  whereby  the  Lord  Christ 
and  believers  actually  coalesce  into  one  mystical  person.  This 
is  by  the  Holy  Spirit  inhabiting  in  him  as  the  head  of  the 
church  in  all  fulness,  and  in  all  believers  according  to  their 
measure,  whereby  they  become  members  of  his  mystical  body. 
That  there  is  such  an  union  between  Christ  and  believers,  is 
the  faith  of  the  catholic  Church,  and  has  been  so  in  all  ages. 
Those  who  seem  in  our  days  to  deny  it  or  question  it,  either 
know  not  what  they  say,  or  their  minds  are  influenced  by  the 
doctrine  of  those  who  deny  the  divine  persons  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Spirit.  Upon  supposition  of  this  union,  reason  will 
grant  the  imputation  pleaded  for  to  be  reasonable;  at  least, 
that  there  is  such  a  pecuhar  ground  for  it,  as  is  not  to  be  ex- 
emplified in  any  things  natural  or  political  among  men. 

2.  The  nature  of  imputation  has  been  fully  spoken  to  before, 
and  thereto  I  refer  the  reader  for  the  understanding  of  what  is 
intended  thereby. 

3.  That  which  is  imputed  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ;  and 
briefly  I  understand  hereby  his  whole  obedience  to  God  in  all 
that  he  did  and  suffered  for  the  church.  This  I  say  is  imputed 
to  believers,  so  as  to  become^  their  only  righteousness  before 
God  to  the  justification  of  life. 

If  beyond  these  things  any  expressions  have  been  made  use 
of  in  the  explanation  of  this  truth,  which  have  given  occasion 
to  any  differences  or  contests,  although  they  may  be  true  and 


238  THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

defensible  against  objections,  yet  shall  not  I  concern  myself  in 
them.  The  substance  of  the  truth  as  laid  down,  is  that  which 
I  have  undertaken  to  defend,  and  where  that  is  granted  or 
consented  to,  I  will  not  contend  with  any  about  their  way  and 
methods  of  its  declaration,  nor  defend  the  terms  and  expres- 
sions that  have  by  any  been  made  use  of  therein.  For  instance, 
some  have  said,  that  "  what  Christ  did  and  suffered,  is  so  im- 
puted to  us,  as  that  we  are  judged  and  esteemed  in  the  sight  of 
God  to  have  done  or  suffered  ourselves  in  him."  This  I  shall 
not  concern  myself  in.  For  although  it  may  have  a  sound  sense 
given  to  it,  and  is  used  by  some  of  the  ancients,  yet  because 
offence  is  taken  at  it,  and  the  substance  of  the  truth  we  plead 
for  is  better  otherwise  expressed,  it  ought  not  to  be  contended 
about.  For  we  do  not  say  that  God  judges  or  esteems  that  we 
did  and  suffered  in  our  own  persons  what  Christ  did  and  suf- 
fered, but  only  that  he  did  it  and  suffered  it  in  our  stead. 
Hereon  God  makes  a  grant  and  donation  of  it  to  believers 
upon  their  believing,  to  their  justification  before  him.  And  the 
like  may  be  said  of  many  other  expressions  of  the  like  nature. 
These  things  being  premised,  I  proceed  to  the  consideration 
of  the  general  objections  that  are  urged  against  the  imputation 
we  plead  for.  And  I  shall  insist  only  on  some  of  the  principal 
of  them,  and  whereinto  all  others  may  be  resolved;  for  it  were 
endless  to  go  over  all  that  any  man's  invention  can  suggest  to 
him  of  this  kind.  And  some  general  considerations  we  must 
take  along  with  us  herein.     As, 

1.  The  doctrine  of  justification  is  a  part,  yea  an  eminent  part 
of  the  mystery  of  the  gospel.  It  is  no  marvel  therefore  if  it  be 
not  so  exposed  to  the  common  notions  of  reason,  as  some  would 
have  It  to  be.  There  is  more  required  to  the  true  spiritual  un- 
derstanding of  such  mysteries;  yea,  unless  we  intend  to  re- 
nounce the  gospel,  it  must  be  asserted,  that  reason  as  it  is  cor- 
rupted, and  the  mind  of  man  destitute  of  divine  supernatural 
revelation,  dishke  every  such  truth,  and  rise  up  in  enmity 
against  it.  So  the  Scripture  directly  afiirms,  Rom.  viii.  7. 
1  Cor.  ii.  14. 

2.  Hence  are  the  minds  and  inventions  of  men  wonderfully 
fertile  in  coining  objections  against  evangelical  truths,  and 
raising  cavils  against  them.  Seldom  to  this  purpose  do  they 
want  an  endless  number  of  sophistical  objections,  which  be- 
cause they  know  no  belter,  they  themselves  judge  unanswer- 
able. For  carnal  reason  being  once  set  at  liberty  under  the 
false  notion  of  truth,  to  act  itself  freely  and  boldly  against  spi- 


THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OP   JUSTIFICATION.  239 

ritual  mysteries,  is  subtle  in  its  arguings,  and  pregnant  in 
its  invention  of  them.  How  endless,  for  instance,  are  the 
sophisms  of  the  Socinians  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
and  how  do  they  triumph  in  them  as  unanswerable.  Under 
the  shelter  of  them  they  despise  the  force  of  the  most  evident 
testimonies  of  the  Scripture,  and  those  muhiplied  on  all  occa- 
sions. In  like  manner  they  deal  with  the  doctrine  of  the  satis- 
faction of  Christ,  as  the  Pelagians  of  old  did  with  that  of  his 
grace.  Wherefore  he  that  will  be  startled  at  the  appearance 
of  subtle  or  plausible  objections,  against  any  gospel  mysteries 
that  are  plainly  revealed,  and  sufficiently  attested  in  the  Scrip- 
ture, is  not  likely  to  come  to  much  stability  in  his  profession  of 
them. 

3.  The  most  of  the  objections  which  are  levied  against  the 
truth  in  this  cause,  arise  from  the  want  of  a  due  comprehen- 
sion of  the  order  of  the  work  of  God's  grace,  and  of  our  com- 
pliance therewith  in  a  way  of  duty,  as  was  before  observed. 
For  they  consist  in  opposing  those  things  one  to  another  as  in- 
consistent, which  in  their  proper  place  and  order  are  not  only 
consistent,  but  mutually  subservient  one  to  another;  and  are 
found  so  in  the  experience  of  them  that  truly  believe.  Instances 
hereof  have  been  given  before,  and  others  will  immediately 
occur.  Taking  the  consideration  of  these  things  with  us,  we 
may  see  the  origin  of  the  objections,  and  of  what  force  they  are. 

4.  Let  it  be  considered  that  the  objections  which  are  made 
use  of  against  the  truth  we  assert,  are  all  of  them  taken  from 
certain  consequences,  which  as  it  is  supposed,  will  ensue  on 
the  admission  of  it.  And  as  this  is  the  only  expedient  to  per- 
petuate controversies,  and  make  them  endless,  so  to  my  best 
observation  I  never  yet  met  with  any  one,  but  that,  to  give  an 
appearance  of  force  to  the  absurdity  of  the  consequences  from 
whence  he  argues,  he  framed  his  suppositions,  or  the  state  of 
the  question,  to  the  disadvantage  of  them  whom  he  opposed;  a 
course  of  proceeding  which  I  wonder  good  men  are  not  either 
weary,  or  ashamed  of 

1.  It  is  objected,  "that  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  overthrows  all  remission  of  sins  on  the  part  of  God." 
This  is  pleaded  for  by  Socinus,  and  by  others  it  is  also  made 
use  of  A  confident  charge  this  seems  to  them  who  steadfastly 
believe  that  without  this  imputation,  there  could  be  no  remis- 
sion of  sin.  But  they  say,  that  he  who  has  a  righteousness  im- 
puted to  him  that  is  absolutely  perfect,  so  as  to  be  made  his 
own,  needs  no  pardon,  has  no  sin  that  should  be  forgiven,  nor 


240  THE    FORMAL   CAUSE    OP    JUSTIFICATION. 

can  ever  need  forgiveness.  But  because  this  objection  will 
occur  to  us  again  in  the  vindication  of  one  of  our  ensuing  argu- 
ments, I  shall  here  briefly  speak  to  it. 

1.  Grotius  shall  answer  this  objection ;  he  says,*  "  Whereas  we 
have  said  that  Christ  has  procured  two  things  for  us,  freedom 
from  punishment,  and  a  reward;  the  ancient  Church  attributes 
the  former  of  them  distinctly  to  his  satisfaction,  the  latter  to  his 
merit.  Satisfaction  consists  in  the  transferring  of  sins,  (from  us 
unto  him;)  merit,  in  the  imputation  to  us  of  his  most  perfect  obe- 
dience performed  for  us."  In  his  judgment  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  were  as  consistent  as 
the  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ,  as  indeed  they  are. 

2.  Had  we  not  been  sinners,  we  should  have  had  no  need  of 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  render  us  right- 
eous before  God.  Being  so,  the  first  end  for  which  it  is  im- 
puted is  the  pardon  of  sin;  without  which  we  could  not  be 
righteous  by  the  imputation  of  the  most  perfect  righteousness. 
These  things  therefore  are  consistent,  namely,  that  the  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ  should  be  imputed  to  us  for  the  pardon  of  sin, 
and  the  obedience  of  Christ  be  imputed  to  us,  to  render  us  right- 
eous before  God.  And  they  are  not  only  consistent,  but  neither 
of  them  singly  were  sufficient  to  our  justification. 

2.  It  is  pleaded  by  the  same  author  and  others, "  that  the  im- 
putation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  overthrows  all  necessity 
of  repentance  for  sin,  in  order  to  the  remission  or  pardon  thereof, 
yea  renders  it  altogether  needless.  For  what  need  has  he  of 
repentance  for  sin,  who  by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  is  esteemed  completely  just  and  righteous  in  the  sight 
of  God?  If  Christ  satisfied  for  all  sins  in  the  person  of  the 
elect;  if  as  our  surety  he  paid  all  our  debts,  and  if  his  right- 
eousness be  made  ours  before  we  repent,  then  is  all  repentance 
needless."  And  these  things  are  much  enlarged  on  by  the 
same  author  in  the  place  before  mentioned. 

Answer  (1)  It  must  be  remembered,  that  we  require  evan- 
gelical faith,  in  order  of  nature,  antecedently  to  our  justification 
by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  us,  which 
also  is  the  condition  of  its  continuation.  Wherefore  whatever 
is  necessary  thereto,  is  in  like  manner  required  of  us  in  order 
to  believing.     Amongst  these,  there  is  a  sorrow  for  sin,  and  a 

*  Cum  duo  nobis  pcperisse  Christum  dixerimus,  impunitatem  et  pr£emium,illud 
satisfactioni,  hoc  merito  Christ!  dislincte  tribuit  vetus  Ecclesia.  Satisfactio  con- 
sistit  in  peccatorum  translatione,  meritum  in  pcrfcctissimEE  obedientia)  pro  nobis 
prsestitfB  imputatione.     Praefat.  ad  Lib.  de  Satisfact. 


THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF    JUSTIFICATION, 


241 


repentance  of  it.  For  whosoever  is  convinced  of  sin  in  a  due 
manner,  so  as  to  be  sensible  of  its  evil  and  guilt,  both  as  in  its 
own  nature  it  is  contrary  to  the  preceptive  part  of  the  holy 
law,  and  in  the  necessary  consequences  of  it,  in  the  wrath  and 
curse  of  God,  cannot  but  be  perplexed  in  his  mind,  that  he  has 
involved  himself  therein.  And  that  posture  of  mind  will  be 
accompanied  with  shame,  fear,  sorrow,  and  other  afflictive 
passions.  Hereon  a  resolution  ensues,  utterly  to  abstain  from 
it  for  the  future,  with  sincere  endeavours  to  that  purpose, 
issuing,  if  there  be  time  and  space  for  it,  in  reformation  of  life. 
And  in  a  sense  of  sin,  sorrow  for  it,  fear  concerning  it,  absti- 
nence from  it,  and  reformation  of  life,  a  repentance  true  in  its 
kind  consists.  This  repentance  is  usually  called  legal,  because 
its  motives  are  principally  taken  from  the  law;  but  yet  there 
is  moreover  required  to  it  that  temporary  faith  of  the  gospel 
which  we  have  before  described.  And  as  it  usually  produces 
great  effects  in  the  confession  of  sin,  humiliation  for  it,  and 
change  of  life,  as  in  Ahab  and  the  Ninevites,  so  ordinarily  it 
precedes  true  saving  faith,  and  justification  thereby.  Where- 
fore the  necessity  hereof,  is  no  way  weakened  by  the  doctrine 
of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  yea  it  is 
strengthened  and  made  effectual  thereby.  For  without  it,  in 
the  order  of  the  gospel,  an  interest  therein  is  not  to  be  attained. 
And  this  is  that  which  in  the  Old  Testament  is  so  often  proposed 
as  the  means  and  conditions  of  turning  away  the  judgments 
and  punishments  threatened  against  sin.  For  it  is  true  and 
sincere  in  its  kind;  neither  do  the  Socinians  require  any  other 
repentance  to  justification.  For  as  they  deny  true  evangelical 
repentance  in  all  the  especial  causes  of  it,  so  that  which  may 
and  does  precede  faith  in  order  of  nature,  is  all  that  they  re- 
quire. This  objection  therefore  as  managed  by  them,  is  a 
causeless  vain  pretence. 

3.  Justifying  faith  includes  in  its  nature  the  entire  principle 
of  evangelical  repentance,  so  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  that 
a  man  should  be  a  true  believer,  and  not  at  the  same  instant 
of  time  be  truly  penitent.  And  therefore  are  they  so  fre- 
quently conjoined  in  the  Scripture  as  one  simultaneous  duty. 
Yea  the  call  of  the  gospel  to  repentance  is  a  call  to  faith,  act- 
ing itself  by  repentance.  So  the  sole  reason  of  that  call  to  re- 
pentance which  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  annexed  to,  (Acts  ii. 
38,)  is  the  proposal  of  the  promise  which  is  the  object  of  faith, 
ver.  39.  And  those  conceptions  and  affections  which  a  man 
has  about  sin,  with  a  sorrow  for  it  and  repentance  of  it,  upon 

21 


w 


242  THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

a  legal  conviction,  being  enlivened  and  made  evangelical  by 
the  introduction  of  faith  as  a  new  principle  of  them,  and  giv- 
ing new  motives  to  them,  become  evangelical;  so  impossible  is 
it  that  faith  should  be  without  repentance.  Wherefore  al- 
though the  first  act  of  faith,  and  its  only  proper  exercise  to 
justification,  respects  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  and  the  way 
of  salvation  by  him,  as  proposed  in  the  promise  of  the  gospel, 
yet  is  not  this  conceived  in  order  of  time  to  precede  its  actings 
in  self-displicency,  godly  sorrow,  and  universal  conversion 
from  sin  to  God;  nor  can  it  be  so,  seeing  it  virtually  and  radi- 
cally contains  all  of  them  in  itself.  However  therefore  evan- 
gelical repentance  is  not  the  condition  of  our  justification,  so 
as  to  have  any  direct  influence  upon  it;  nor  are  we  said  any 
where  to  be  justified  by  repentance;  nor  is  it  conversant  about 
the  proper  object  which  alone  the  soul  respects  therein;  nor  is 
a  direct  and  immediate  giving  glory  to  God,  on  account  of  the 
way  and  work  of  his  wisdom  and  grace  in  Christ  Jesus,  but  a 
consequence  thereof;  nor  is  that  reception  of  Christ  which  is 
expressly  required  to  our  justification,  and  which  alone  is  re- 
quired thereto;  yet  is  it,  in  the  root,  principle,  and  promptitude 
of  mind  for  its  exercise,  in  every  one  that  is  justified,  ihe7i 
when  he  is  justified.  And  it  is  peculiarly  proposed  with  re- 
spect to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  as  that  without  which  it  is  im- 
possible we  should  have  any  true  sense  or  comfort  of  it  in  our 
souls;  but  it  is  not  so  as  any  part  of  that  righteousness  on  the 
consideration  whereof  our  sins  are  pardoned,  nor  as  that 
whereby  we  have  an  interest  therein.  These  things  are  plain 
in  the  divine  method  of  our  justification,  and  the  order  of  our 
duty  prescribed  in  the  gospel;  as  also  in  the  experience  of 
them  that  believe.  Wherefore  considering  the  necessity  of 
legal  repentance  to  believing,  with  the  sanctification  of  the 
affections  exercised  therein  by  faith,  whereby  they  are  made 
evangelical,  and  the  nature  of  faith  as  including  in  it  a  princi- 
ple of  universal  conversion  to  God,  and  especially  of  that  re- 
pentance, which  has  for  its  principal  motive  the  love  of  God, 
and  of  Jesus  Christ,  with  the  grace  from  thence  communicated, 
all  which  are  supposed  in  the  doctrine  pleaded  for,  the  neces- 
sity of  true  repentance  is  immovably  fixed  on  its  proper  foun- 
dation. 

3.  As  to  what  was  said  in  the  objection  concerning  Christ's 
suffering  in  the  person  of  the  elect,  I  know  not  whether  any 
have  used  it  or  not,  nor  will  I  contend  about  it.  He  suffered 
in  their  stead;  which  all  sorts  of  writers  ancient  and  modern 


THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF    JUSTIFICATION.  243 

SO  express,  "  in  his  suffering  he  bare  the  person  of  the  church." 
The  meaning  is  what  was  before  declared.  Christ  and  be- 
lievers are  one  mystical  person,  one  spiritually  animated  body, 
head  and  members.  This  I  suppose  will  not  be  denied;  to  do 
so  is  to  overthrow  the  church  and  the  faith  of  it.  Hence  what 
he  did  and  suffered  is  imputed  to  them.  And  it  is  granted  that 
as  the  surety  of  the  covenant  he  paid  all  our  debts,  or  answer- 
ed for  all  our  faults;  and  that  his  righteousness  is  really  com- 
municated to  us.  Why  then,  say  some,  there  is  no  need  of  re- 
pentance, all  is  done  for  us  already.  But  why  so?  why  must 
we  assent  to  one  part  of  the  gospel  to  the  exclusion  of  another? 
Was  it  not  free  to  God  to  appoint  what  way,  method  and  order 
he  would,  whereby  these  things  should  be  communicated  to 
us?  nay  upon  the  supposition  of  the  design  of  his  wisdom  and 
grace,  these  two  things  were  necessary; 

1.  That  this  righteousness  of  Christ  should  be  communicated 
to  us,  and  be  made  ours  in  such  a  way  and  manner,  as  that  he 
himself  might  be  glorified  therein,  seeing  he  has  disposed  all 
things  in  this  whole  economy,  "  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of 
his  grace,"  Ephes.  i.  6.  This  was  to  be  done  by  faith  on  our 
part.  It  is  so,  it  could  be  no  otherwise.  For  that  faith  where- 
by we  are  justified,  is  our  giving  to  God  the  glory  of  his  wis- 
dom, grace  and  love.  And  whatever  does  so,  is  faith,  and 
nothing  else  is  so. 

2.  That  whereas  our  nature  was  so  corrupted  and  depraved, 
as  that  continuing  in  that  state,  it  was  not  capable  of  a  partici- 
pation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or  any  benefit  of  it,  to 
the  glory  of  God,  and  our  own  good,  it  was  in  like  manner 
necessary  that  it  should  be  renewed  and  changed.  And  unless 
it  were  so,  the  design  of  God  in  the  mediation  of  Christ,  which 
was  the  entire  recovery  of  us  to  himself  could  not  be  attained. 
And  therefore  as  faith,  under  the  formal  consideration  of  it, 
was  necessary  to  the  first  end,  namely,  that  of  giving  glory  to 
God,  so  to  this  latter  end,  it  was  necessary  that  this  faith  should 
be  accompanied  with,  yea  and  contain  in  itself  the  seeds  of  all 
those  other  graces  wherein  the  Divine  nature  consists,  whereof 
we  are  to  be  made  partakers.  Not  only  therefore  the  thing 
itself,  or  the  communication  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to 
us,  but  the  way  and  manner,  and  means  of  it,  depend  on  God's 
sovereign  order  and  disposal.  Wherefore  although  Christ  made 
satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God,  for  all  the  sins  of  the  church, 
and  that  as  a  common  person,  (for  no  man  in  his  wits  can  deny 
but  that  he  who  is  a  mediator  and  a  surety,  is  in  some  sense  a 


244 


THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 


common  person)  and  although  he  paid  all  our  debts,  yet  does 
the  particular  interest  of  this  or  that  man.  in  what  he  did  and 
sufiered,  depend  on  the  wav,  means,  and  order  designed  of 
God  to  that  end.  This  and  this  alone  gives  the  true  necessity 
of  all  the  duties  which  are  required  of  us,  with  their  order  and 
their  ends. 

3dly,  It  is  objected,  "  That  the  imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  which  we  defend,  overthrows  the  necessity  of 
faith  itself"  This  is  home  indeed.  ,/2 liquid  adhserebit,'\s  the 
design  of  all  these  objections.  But  they  have  reason  to  plead 
for  themselves  who  make  it.  "  For  on  this  supposition,"  they 
say,  "  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  ours  before  Vv^e  believe. 
For  Christ  satisfied  for  all  our  sins,  as  if  we  had  satisfied  in  our 
own  persons.  And  he  who  is  esteemed  to  have  satisfied  for 
all  his  sins  in  his  own  person,  is  acquitted  from  them  all,  and 
accounted  just,  whether  he  believe  or  not;  nor  is  there  any 
ground  or  reason  why  he  should  be  required  to  believe.  If 
therefore  the  righteousness  of  Christ  be  really  ours,  because  in 
the  judgment  of  God  we  are  esteemed  to  have  wrought  it  in 
him,  then  it  is  ours  before  we  believe.  If  it  be  otherwise,  then 
it  is  plain  that  that  righteousness  itself  can  never  be  made  ours 
by  believing;  only  the  fruits  and  effects  of  it  may  be  suspended 
on  our  believing,  whereby  we  may  be  made  partakers  of  them. 
Yea  if  Christ  made  any  such  satisfaction  for  us  as  is  pretended,  it 
is  really  ours,  without  any  further  imputation.  For  being  per- 
formed for  us  and  in  our  stead  it  is  the  highest  injustice  not  to 
have  us  accounted  pardoned  and  acquitted,  without  any  further 
imputation  on  the  part  of  God,  or  faith  on  ours."  These  things 
I  have  transcribed  out  of  Socinus,  which  I  would  not  have 
done,  but  that  I  find  others  to  have  gone  before  me  therein, 
though  to  another  purpose.  And  he  concludes  with  a  confi- 
dence which  others  also  seem  in  some  measure  to  have  learned 
of  him.  For  he  says  to  his  adversary,  Hsec  tiia,  iuoruinque 
sententia,  adcofceda  et  execrabilis  est,  ut  pestihntiorem  error- 
em  post  homines  oiatos  in  populo  Dei  extilisse  non  credam; 
speaking  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  and  the  imputation  of  it  to 
believers.  And  indeed  his  serpentine  wit  was  fertile  in  the  in- 
vention of  cavils  against  all  the  mysteries  of  the  gospel.  Nor 
was  he  obliged  by  any  one  of  them,  so  as  to  contradict  himself 
in  what  he  opposed  concerning  any  other  of  them.  For  deny- 
ing the  deity  of  Christ,  his  satisfaction,  sacrifice,  merit,  right- 
eousness, and  overthrowing  the  whole  nature  of  his  mediation, 
nothing  stood  in  his  way  which  he  had  a  mind  to  oppose.    But 


THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 


245 


I  somewhat  wonder  how  others  can  make  use  of  his  inventions 
in  this  kind,  who,  if  they  considered  aright  their  proper  ten- 
dency, would  find  them  to  be  absolutely  destructive  of  what 
they  seem  to  own.  So  it  is  in  this  present  objection  against 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ;  if  it  has  any 
force  in  it,  as  indeed  it  has  not,  it  is  to  prove  that  the  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ  was  impossible;  and  so  he  intended  it.  But  it 
will  be  easily  removed. 

I  answer  first  in  general;  that  the  whole  fallacy  of  this  objec- 
tion lies  in  the  opposing  one  part  of  the  design  and  method  of 
God's  grace  in  this  mystery  of  our  justification,  to  another;  or 
the  taking  of  one  part  of  it  to  be  the  whole,  which  as  to  its 
efficacy  and  perfection  depends  on  something  else.  Hereof  we 
warned  the  reader  in  our  previous  discourses.  For  the  whole 
of  it  is  a  supposition,  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  if  there  be 
any  such  thing,  must  have  its  whole  eff"ect,  without  believing 
on  our  part,  which  is  contrary  to  the  whole  declaration  of  the 
will  of  God  in  the  gospel.  But  I  shall  principally  respect  them 
who  are  pleased  to  make  use  of  this  objection,  and  yet  do  not 
deny  the  satisfaction  of  Christ.     And  I  say 

1.  When  the  Lord  Christ  died  for  us,  and  offered  himself  as 
a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  God  laid  all  our  sins  on  him,  Isa.  liii.  6. 
And  he  then  bare  them  all  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  1  Pet. 
ii.  24.  Then  he  suffered  in  our  stead,  and  made  full  satisfac- 
tion for  all  our  sins;  for  he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the 
sacrifice  of  himself,  Heb.  ix.  26;  and  by  one  offering  he  hath 
perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified,  Heb.  x.  14.  He 
whose  sins  were  not  actually  and  absolutely  satisfied  for,  in 
that  one  offering  of  Christ,  shall  never  have  them  expiated 
to  eternity.  For  henceforth  he  dieth  no  more,  there  is  no  more 
sacrifice  for  sin.  The  repetition  of  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  which 
must  be  the  crucifying  of  Christ  afresh,  overthrows  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Christian  religion. 

2.  Notwithstanding  this  full,  plenary  satisfaction  once  made 
for  the  sins  of  the  world  that  shall  be  saved;  yet  all  men  con- 
tinue equally  to  be  born  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  and  whilst 
they  believe  not,  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  them,  John  iii, 
36;  that  is,  they  are  obnoxious  to,  and  under  the  curse  of  the 
law.  Wherefore  on  the  only  making  of  that  satisfaction,  no 
one  for  whom  it  was  made  in  the  design  of  God,  can  be  said 
to  have  suffered  in  Christ,  nor  to  have  an  interest  in  his  satis- 
faction, nor  by  any  way  or  means  be  made  partaker  of  it  ante- 
cedently to  another  act  of  God  in  its  imputation  to  him.     For 

21* 


246  THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

this  is  but  one  part  of  the  purpose  of  God's  grace,  as  to  our  jus- 
tification by  the  blood  of  Christ,  namely,  that  he  by  his  death 
should  make  satisfaction  for  our  sins.  Nor  is  it  to  be  separated 
from  what  also  belongs  to  it,  in  the  same  purpose  of  God. 
Wherefore  from  the  position  or  grant  of  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ,  no  argument  can  be  taken  to  the  negation  of  a  conse- 
quential act  of  its  imputation  to  us;  nor  therefore  of  the  neces- 
sity of  our  faith  in  the  believing  and  receiving  of  it,  which  is 
no  less  the  appointment  of  God,  than  it  was  that  Christ  should 
make  that  satisfaction.     Wherefore 

3.  That  which  the  Lord  Christ  paid  for  us,  is  as  truly  paid, 
as  if  we  had  paid  it  ourselves.  So  he  speaks,  Psalm  Ixix.  5. 
"  I  restored  that  which  I  took  not  away."  He  made  no  spoil 
of  the  glory  of  God;  what  was  done  of  that  nature  by  us,  he 
returned  it  to  him.  And  what  he  underwent  and  suffered,  he 
underwent  and  suffered  inour  stead.  But  yet  the  act  of  God  in 
laying  our  sins  on  Christ,  conveyed  no  actual  right  and  title  to  us, 
to  what  he  did  and  suffered.  They  are  not  immediately  thereon, 
nor  by  virtue  thereof,  ours,  or  esteemed  ours,  because  God  has 
appointed  somewhat  else,  not  only  antecedent  thereto,  but  as 
the  means  of  it,  to  his  own  glory.  These  things  both  as  to 
their  being  and  order,',  depend  on  the  free  ordination  of  God. 
But  yet,  '"1. 

4.  It  cannot  be  said  that  this  satisfaction  was  made  for  us  on 
such  a  condition  as  should  absolutely  suspend  the  event,  and 
render  it  uncertain  whether  it  should  ever  be  for  us  or  not. 
Such  a  constitution  may  be  lighteous  in  pecuniary  matters. 
A  man  may  lay  down  a  great  sum  of  money  for  the  discharge 
of  another,  on  such  a  condition  as  may  never  be  fulfilled.  For 
on  the  absolute  failure  of  the  condition,  his  money  may  and 
ought  to  be  restored  to  him,  whereon  he  has  received  no  injury 
or  damage.  But  in  penal  suffering  for  crimes  and  sins,  there 
can  be  no  righteous  constitution  that  shall  make  tlie  event  and 
efficacy  of  it  depend  on  a  condition  absolutely  uncertain,  and 
which  may  not  come  to  pass  or  be  fulfilled.  For  if  the  condi- 
tion fail,  no  recompense  can  be  made  to  him  who  has  suffered. 
Wherefore  the  way  of  the  application  of  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ  to  them  for  whom  it  was  made,  is  sure  and  steadfast  in 
the  purpose  of  God. 

5.  God  has  appointed  that  there  shall  be  an  immediate  foun- 
dation of  the  imputation  of  the  satisfaction  and  righteousness 
of  Christ  to  us,  whereon  we  may  be  said  to  have  djne  and 
suffered  in  him,  what  he  did  and  suffered  in  our  stead,  by  that 


V 
THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF   JUSTIFICATION.  247 

grant,  donation,  and  imputation  of  it  to  us;  or  that  we  may  be 
interested  in  it,  that  it  may  be  made  ours,  which  is  aU  we  con- 
tend for.  And  this  is  our  actual  coalescence  into  one  mystical 
person  with  him  by  faiih.  Hereon  the  necessity  of  faith  origi- 
nally depends.  And  if  we  shall  add  hereto  the  necessity  of  it 
likewise  to  that  especial  glory  of  God  which  he  designs  to  exalt 
in  our  justification  by  Christ,  as  also  to  all  the  ends  of  our  obe- 
dience to  God,  and  the  renovation  of  our  natures  into  his 
image,  its  station  is  sufficiently  secured  against  all  objections. 
Our  actual  interest  in  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  depends  on  our 
actual  insertion  into  his  mystical  body  by  faith,  according  to 
the  appointment  of  God. 

4thly.  It  is  yet  objected,  that  if  the  righteousness  of  Christ  be 
made  ours,  we  may  be  said  to  be  saviours  of  the  world  as  he 
was,  or  to  save  others  as  he  did.  For  he  was  so  and  did  so  by 
his  righteousness  and  no  otherwise.  This  objection  also  is  of 
the  same  nature  with  those  foregoing,  a  mere  sophistical  cavil. 
For, 

1.  The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not  transfused  into  us,  so 
as  to  be  made  inherently  and  subjectively  ours,  as  it  was  in 
him,  and  which  is  necessarily  required  to  that  effect  of  saving 
others  thereby.  Whatever  we  may  do,  or  be  said  to  do  with 
respect  to  others,  by  virtue  of  any  power  or  quality  inherent 
in  ourselves,  we  can  be  said  to  do  nothing  to  others,  or  for 
them,  by  virtue  of  that  which  is  imputed  to  us,  only  for  our 
own  benefit.  That  any  righteousness  of  ours  should  benefit 
another,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  it  should  be  wrought  by 
ourselves. 

2.  If  the  righteousness  of  Christ  could  be  transfused  into 
us,  and  be  made  inherently  ours,  yet  could  we  not  be,  nor  be 
said  to  be  the  saviours  of  others  thereby.  For  our  nature  in 
our  individual  persons,  is  not  siihjectiim  capux,  or  capable  to 
receive  and  retain  a  righteousness  useful  and  effectual  to  that 
end.  This  capacity  was  given  to  it  in  Christ  by  virtue  of  the 
hypostatical  union,  and  not  otherwise.  The  righteousness  of 
Christ  himself  as  performed  in  the  human  nature,  would  not 
have  been  sufficient  for  the  justification  and  salvation  of  the 
church,  had  it  not  been  the  righteousness  of  his  person,  who  is 
both  God  and  man;  for  "God  redeemed  his  church  with  his 
own  blood." 

3.  This  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  us,  as 
to  its  ends  and  use,  has  its  measure  from  the  will  of  God,  and 
his  purpose  in  that  imputation.     And  this  is,  that  it  should  be 


248  THE    FORMAL   CAUSE    OP   JUSTIFICATION. 

the  righteousness  of  them  to  whom  it  is  imputed,  and  nothing 
else. 

4,  We  do  not  say  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  made 
absolutely  for  the  whole  church,  is  imputed  to  every  believer. 
But  his  satisfaction  for  every  one  of  them  in  particular,  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  God,  is  imputed  to  them;  not  with  respect  to 
its  general  ends,  but  according  to  every  one's  particular  inte- 
rest. Every  believer  has  his  own  homer  of  this  bread  of  life; 
and  all  are  justified  by  the  same  righteousness. 

5.  The  Apostle  declares,  as  we  shall  prove  afterwards,  that 
as  Adam's  actual  sin  is  imputed  to  us  to  condemnation,  so  is 
the  obedience  of  Christ  imputed  to  us,  to  the  justification  of  life. 
But  Adam's  sin  is  not  so  imputed  to  any  person,  as  that  he 
should  then  and  thereby  be  the  cause  of  sin  and  condemnation 
to  all  other  persons  in  the  world;  but  only  that  he  himself 
should  become  guilty  before  God  thereon.  And  so  is  it  on  the 
other  side.  And  as  we  are  made  guilty  bj^  Adam's  actual  sin 
which  is  not  inherent  in  us,  but  only  imputed  to  us;  so  are  we 
made  righteous  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  which  is  not  in- 
herent in  us,  but  only  imputed  to  us.  And  imputed  to  us  it  is, 
because  himself  was  righteous  with  it,  not  for  himself  but 
for  us. 

It  is  yet  said,  that  "if  we  insist  on  personal  imputation  to  every 
believer  of  what  Christ  did,  or  if  any  believer  be  personally 
righteous  in  the  very  individual  acts  of  Christ's  righteousness, 
many  absurdities  will  follow."  But  it  was  observed  before, 
that  when  any  design  to  oppose  an  opinion  from  the  absurdi- 
ties which  they  suppose  would  follow  upon  it,  they  are  much 
inclined  so  to  state  it,  that  at  least  they  may  seem  so  to  do. 
And  this  ofttimes  the  most  worthy  and  candid  persons  are  not 
free  from  in  the  heat  of  disputation.  So  I  fear  it  is  here  fallen 
out.  For  as  to  "personal  imputation"  I  do  not  well  understand 
it.  All  imputation  is  to  a  person,  and  is  the  act  of  a  person,  be 
it  of  what,  and  what  sort  it  will,  but  from  neither  of  them  can 
be  denominated  a  personal  imputation.  And  if  an  imputation 
be  allowed  that  is  not  to  the  persons  of  men,  namely,  in  this 
case  to  all  believers,  the  nature  of  it  has  not  yet  been  declared, 
as  I  know  of. 

That  any  have  so  expressed  the  imputation  pleaded  for,  that 
every  believer  should  be  personally  righteous  in  the  very  indi- 
vidual acts  of  Christ's  righteousness,  I  know  not;  I  have  neither 
read  nor  heard  any  of  them  who  have  so  expressed  their  mind. 
It  may  be  some  have  done  so;  but  I  shall  not  undertake  the  de- 


\ 


THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 


249 


fence  of  what  they  liave  done.  For  it  seems  not  only  to  sup- 
pose that  Christ  did  every  individual  act  which  in  any  instance 
is  required  of  us,  but  also  that  those  acts  are  made  our  own  in- 
herently; both  which  are  false  and  impossible.  That  which 
indeed  is  pleaded  for  in  this  imputation,  is  only  this:  that  what 
the  Lord  Christ  did  and  su tiered  as  the  mediator  and  surety  of 
the  covenant  in  answer  to  the  law,  for  them  and  in  their  stead, 
is  imputed  to  every  one  of  them  to  the  justification  of  life. 
And  sufficient  this  is  to  that  end  without  any  such  supposals. 
(1)  From  the  dignity  of  the  person  who  yielded  his  obedience, 
which  rendered  it  both  satisfactory  and  meritorious,  and  impu- 
table to  many.  (2)  From  the  nature  of  the  obedience  itself, 
which  was  a  perfect  compliance  with,  a  fulfihing  of,  and  satis- 
faction to,  the  whole  law  in  all  its  demands.  This  on  the  sup- 
position of  that  act  of  God's  sovereign  authority,  whereby  a 
representative  of  the  whole  church  was  introduced  to  answer 
the  law,  is  the  ground  of  his  righteousness  being  made  theirs, 
and  being  every  way  sufficient  to  their  justification.  (3)  From 
the  constitution  of  God,  that  what  was  done  and  suffered  by 
Christ  as  a  public  person  and  our  surety,  should  be  reckoned  to 
us  as  if  done  by  ourselves.  So  the  sin  of  Adam  whilst  he  was 
a  public  person,  and  represented  his  whole  posterity,  is  im- 
puted to  us  all  as  if  we  had  committed  that  actual  sin.  This 
Bellarmine  himself  frequently  acknowledges.*  "  We  sinned  in 
the  first  man,  when  he  sinned,  and  that  transgression  of  his  was 
also  our  transgression.  For  we  could  not  be  truly  made  sinners 
through  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  unless  his  disobedience  was 
also  ours."  And  elsewliere,  "that  the  actual  sin  of  Adam  is 
imputed  tons,  as  if  we  all  had  committed  that  actual  sin;  that 
is,  broken  the  whole  law  of  God."  And  this  is  that  whereby 
the  Apostle  illustrates  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to  believers;  and  it  may  on  as  good  grounds  be  charged 
with  absurdities  as  the  other.  It  is  not  therefore  said  that 
God  judges  that  we  have  in  our  own  persons  done  those  very 
acts,  and  endured  that  penalty  of  the  law  which  the  Lord  Christ 
did  and  endured.  For  this  would  overthrow  all  imputation. 
But  what  Christ  did  and  suffered,  that  God  imputes  to  believers 
to  the  justification  of  life,  as  if  it  had  been  done  by  themselves; 
and  his  righteousness  as  a  public  person  is  made  theirs  by  im- 

*  Peccavimus  in  primo  homine  quando  ille  peccavit,  et  ilia  ejus  praevaricatio 
nostra  ctiam  piiEvaricatio  fuit.  Non  enim  vere  per  Adami  inobedientiain  consti- 
tueremur  peccatores,  nisi  inobedientia  illius  nostra  etiam  inobedientia  esset.  De 
Amiss.  Grat.  et  Stat.  Peccat.  lib.  5.  cap.  18. 


250  THE     FORMAL    CAUSE    OF    JUSTIFICATION. 

putation,  even  as  the  sin  of  Adam  whilst  a  public  person,  is 
made  the  sin  of  all  his  posterity  by  imputation. 

Hereon  none  of  the  absurdities  pretended,  which  are  really 
such,  do  at  all  follow.  It  does  not  follow,  that  Christ  in  his 
own  person  performed  every  individual  act  that  we  in  our  cir- 
cumstances are  obliged  to  in  a  way  of  duty;  nor  was  there  any 
need  that  so  he  should  do.  This  imputation,  as  I  have  showed, 
stands  on  other  foundations.  Nor  does  it  follow,  that  every 
saved  person's  righteousness  before  God  is  the  same  identically 
and  numerically  with  Christ's  in  his  public  capacity  as  mediator; 
for  this  objection  destroys  itself,  by  affirming  that  as  it  was  his, 
it  was  the  righteousness  of  God-man;  and  so  it  has  an  especial 
nature  as  it  respects  or  relates  to  his  person.  It  is  the  same  that 
Christ  in  his  public  capacity  wrought  or  effected.  But  there  is  a 
wide  difference  in  the  consideration  of  it,  as  his  absolutely  and  as 
made  ours.  It  was  formally  inherent  in  him,  is  only  materially 
Imputed  to  us;  was  actively  his,  is  passively  ours;  was  wrought 
in  the  person  of  God-man,  for  the  whole  church;  is  imputed 
to  each  single  believer,  as  to  his  own  concernment  only.  Adam's 
sin  as  imputed  to  us,  is  not  the  sin  of  a  representative,  though 
it  be  of  him  that  was  so;  but  is  the  particular  sin  of  every  one 
of  us.  But  this  objection  must  be  farther  spoken  to  where  it 
occurs  afterwards.  Nor  will  it  follow,  that  on  this  supposition 
we  should  be  accounted  to  have  done,  that  which  was  done 
long  before  we  were  in  a  capacity  of  doing  any  thing.  For 
what  is  done  for  us  and  in  our  stead,  before  we  are  in  any  such 
capacity,  may  be  imputed  to  us,  as  is  the  sin  of  Adam.  And 
yet  there  is  a  manifold  sense  wherein  men  may  be  said  to  have 
done  what  was  done  for  them,  and  in  their  name  before  their 
actual  existence;  so  that  therein  is  no  absurdity.  As  to  what 
is  added  by  the  way,  that  Christ  did  not  do  nor  suffer  the  idem, 
the  identical  thing,  that  we  were  obliged  to;  whereas  he  did 
what  the  law  required,  and  suffered  what  the  law  threatened 
to  the  disobedient,  which  is  the  whole  of  what  we  are  obliged 
to,  it  will  not  be  so  easily  proved;  nor  the  arguments  very 
suddenly  answered  whereby  the  contrary  has  been  confirmed. 
That  Christ  did  sustain  the  place  of  a  surety,  or  was  the  surety 
of  the  new  covenant,  the  Scripture  so  expressly  affirms,  that  it 
cannot  be  denied.  And  that  there  may  be  sureties  in  cases 
criminal,  as  well  as  civil  and  pecuniary,  has  been  proved  be- 
fore. What  else  occurs  about  the  singularity  of  Christ's  obe- 
dience as  he  was  mediator,  proves  only  that  his  righteousness 
as  formally  and  inherently  his,  was  peculiar  to  himself,  and 


THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OP    JUSTIFICATION.  251 

that  the  adjuncts  of  it  which  arise  from  its  relation  to  his  per- 
son, as  it  was  inherent  in  him,  are  not  communicable  to  them 
to  whom  it  is  imputed. 

It  is  moreover  urged  "  That  upon  the  supposed  imputation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  it  will  follow  that  every  believer 
is  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law.  For  the  obedience  of 
Christ  was  a  legal  righteousness,  and  if  that  be  imputed  to  us, 
then  are  we  justified  by  the  law,  which  is  contrary  to  express 
testimonies  of  Scripture  in  many  places."  Ans.  (1)1  know 
nothing  more  frequent  in  the  writings  of  some  learned  men, 
than  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  our  legal  righteousness; 
who  yet  I  presume  are  able  to  free  themselves  of  this  objec- 
tion. (2)  If  this  follow  in  the  true  sense  of  being  justified  by 
the  law,  or  the  works  of  it,  so  denied  in  the  Scripture,  their 
weakness  is  much  to  be  pitied  who  can  see  no  other  way 
whereby  we  may  be  freed  from  an  obligation  to  be  justified 
by  the  law,  but  by  this  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ.  (3)  The  Scripture  which  aflirms  that  "  by  the  deeds 
of  the  law  no  man  can  be  justified,"  affirms  in  like  manner, 
that  "by  faith  we  do  not  make  void  the  law,  but  establish  it;" 
that  "the  righteousness  of  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  us;"  that 
Christ  "  came  not  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  fulfil  it,  and  is  the 
end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  unto  them  that  believe." 
And  that  the  law  must  be  fulfilled  or  we  cannot  be  justified, 
we  shall  prove  afterwards.  (4)  We  are  not  hereon  justified 
by  the  law  or  the  works  of  it,  in  the  only  sense  of  that  propo- 
sition in  the  Scripture,  and  to  coin  new  senses  or  significations 
of  it,  is  not  safe.  The  meaning  of  it  in  the  Scripture  is,  that 
only  "the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified,"  Rom.  ii,  13;  and 
that  "  he  that  doth  the  things  of  it  shall  live  by  them,"  chap. 
X.  5;  namely,  in  his  own  person,  by  the  way  of  personal  duty 
which  alone  the  law  requires.  But  if  we  who  have  not  ful- 
filled the  law  in  the  way  of  inherent  personal  obedience,  are 
justified  by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  us, 
then  are  we  justified  by  Christ  and  not  by  the  law.  But  it  is 
said,  that  "  this  will  not  relieve,  for  if  his  obedience  be  so  im- 
puted to  us,  that  we  are  accounted  by  God  in  judgment  to  have 
done  what  Christ  did,  we  are  as  much  justified  by  the  law,  as 
if  we  had  in  our  own  proper  persons  performed  an  unsinning 
obedience  to  it."  This  I  confess  I  cannot  understand.  The 
nature  of  this  imputation  is  here  represented  as  formerly,  in 
such  a  way  as  we  caimot  acknowledge;  from  thence  alone  this 
inference  is  made,  which  yet  in  my  judgment  does  not  follow 


252  THE    FORMAL    CAUSE    OF   JUSTIFICATION. 

thereon.  For  grant  an  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  an- 
other to  us,  be  it  of  what  nature  it  will,  all  justification  by  the 
law  and  works  of  it  in  the  sense  of  the  Scripture  is  gone  for 
ever.  The  admission  of  imputation  takes  off  all  power  from 
the  law  to  justify;  for  it  can  justify  none,  but  upon  a  righteous- 
ness that  is  originally  and  inherently  his  own.  "  The  man  that 
doth  them  shall  live  in  them."  If  the  righteousness  that  is  im- 
puted be  the  ground  and  foundation  of  our  justification,  and 
made  ours  by  that  imputation,  state  it  how  you  will,  that  jus- 
tification is  of  grace  and  not  of  the  law.  However  I  know 
not  of  any  that  say  we  are  accounted  of  God  in  judgment  per- 
sonally to  have  done  what  Christ  did;  and  it  may  have  a  sense 
that  is  false;  namely,  that  God  should  judge  us  in  our  own 
persons  to  have  done  those  acts  which  we  never  did.  But 
what  Clirist  did  for  us  and  in  our  stead,  is  imputed  and  com- 
municated to  us,  as  we  coalesce  into  one  mystical  person  with 
him  by  faith,  and  thereon  are  we  justified.  And  this  abso- 
lutely overthrows  all  justification  by  the  law  or  the  works  of 
it;  though  the  law  be  established,  fulfilled  and  accomplished, 
that  we  may  be  justified. 

Neither  can  any  on  the  supposition  of  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  truly  stated,  be  said  to  merit  their  own 
salvation.  Satisfaction  and  merit  are  adjuncts  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  as  formally  inherent  in  his  own  person;  and  as 
such  it  cannot  be  transfused  into  another.  Wherefore  as  it  is 
imputed  to  individual  believers,  it  has  not  those  properties  ac- 
companying it  which  belong  only  to  its  existence  in  the  person 
of  the  Son  of  God.  But  this  was  spoken  to  before,  as  much 
also  of  what  was  necessary  to  be  here  repeated. 

These  objections  I  have  in  this  place  taken  notice  of,  because 
the  answers  given  to  them  tend  to  the  further  explanation  of 
that  truth,  whose  confirmation  by  arguments  and  testimonies 
of  Scripture  I  shall  now  proceed  to. 


ARGUMENTS    FOR    JUSTIFICATION.  253 


CHAPTER  X. 

ARGUMENTS  FOR  JUSTIFICATION  BY  THE  IMPUTATION  OF  THE  RIGHT- 
EOUSNESS OF  CHRIST.  THE  FIRST  ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  NATURE  AND 
USE  OF  OUR  OWN  PERSONAL  RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

There  is  a  justification  of  convinced  sinners  on  their  believ- 
ing. Hereon  are  their  sins  pardoned,  their  persons  accepted 
with  God,  and  a  right  is  given  to  them,  to  the  heavenly  in- 
heritance. This  state  they  are  immediately  taken  into  upon 
their  faith,  or  believing  in  Jesus  Christ.  And  a  state  it  is  of 
actual  peace  with  God.  These  things  at  present  I  take  for 
granted,  and  they  are  the  foundation  of  all  that  I  shall  plead 
in  the  present  argument.  And  I  take  notice  of  them  because 
some  seem,  to  the  best  of  my  understanding,  to  deny  any  real 
actual  justification  of  sinners  on  their  beheving  in  this  life. 
For  they  make  justification  to  be  only  a  general  conditional 
sentence  declared  in  the  gospel,  which  as  to  its  execution,  is 
delayed  to  the  day  of  judgment.  For  whilst  men  are  in  this 
world,  the  whole  condition  of  it  being  not  fulfilled,  they  cannot 
be  partakers  of  it,  or  be  actually  and  absolutely  justified. 
Hereon  it  follows,  that  indeed  there  is  no  real  state  of  assured 
rest  and  peace  with  God  by  Jesus  Christ,  for  any  persons  in 
this  life.  This  at  present  I  shall  not  dispute  about,  because  it 
seems  to  me  to  overthrow  the  whole  gospel,  the  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  all  the  comfort  of  believers  about  which 
I  hope  we  are  not  as  yet  called  to  contend. 

Our  inquiry  is,  how  convinced  sinners  do  on  their  believing 
obtain  the  remission  of  sins,  acceptance  with  God,  and  a  right 
to  eternal  life.  And  if  this  can  no  other  way  be  done,  but  by 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  them,  then 
thereby  alone  are  they  justified  in  the  sight  of  God.  And  this 
assertion  proceeds  on  a  supposition  that  there  is  a  righteous- 
ness required  to  the  justification  of  any  person  whatever.  For 
whereas  God  in  the  justification  of  any  person,  declares  him  to 
be  acquitted  from  all  crimes  laid  to  his  charge,  and  to  stand  as 
righteous  in  his  sight,  it  must  be  on  the  consideration  of  a  right- 
eousness, whereon  any  man  is  so  acquitted  and  declared;  for 
the  judgment  of  God  is  according  to  truth.  This  we  have  suf- 
ficiently evidenced  before  in  that  juridical  procedure  wherein 
the  Scripture  represents  to  us  the  justification  of  a  believing 

22 


254  ARGUMENTS    FOR    JUSTIFICATION    BY    THE 

sinner.  And  if  there  be  no  other  righteousness  whereby  we 
may  be  thus  justified,  but  only  that  of  Christ  imputed  to  us, 
then  thereby  must  we  be  justified  or  not  at  all  And  if  there 
be  any  such  other  righteousness,  it  must  be  our  own,  inherent 
in  us,  and  wrought  out  by  us.  For  these  two  kinds  inherent 
and  imputed  rigliteousness,  our  own  and  Christ's,  divide  the 
whole  nature  of  righteousness,  as  to  the  end  inquired  after. 
And  that  there  is  no  such  inherent  righteousness,  no  such  right- 
eousness of  our  own  whereby  we  may  be  justified  before  God, 
I  shall  prove  in  the  first  place.  And  I  shall  do  it,  first  from 
express  testimonies  of  Scripture,  and  then  from  the  considera- 
tion of  the  thing  itself.   And  two  things  I  shall  premise  hereto. 

1.  That  I  shall  not  consider  this  righteousness  of  our  own 
absolutely  in  itself,  but  as  it  may  be  conceived  to  be  improved 
and  advanced  by  its  relation  to  the  satisfaction  and  merit  of 
Christ;  for  many  will  grant  that  our  inherent  righteousness  is 
not  of  itself  sufficient  to  justify  us  in  the  sight  of  God.  But  take 
it  as  it  has  value  and  worth  communicated  to  it  from  the  merit 
of  Christ,  and  so  it  is  accepted  to  that  end,  and  judged  worthy 
of  eternal  life.  We  could  not  merit  life  and  salvation,  had  not 
Christ  merited  that  grace  for  us  whereby  we  may  do  so;  and 
merited  also  that  our  works  should  be  of  such  a  dignity  with 
respect  to  reward.  We  shall  therefore  allow  what  worth  can 
be  reasonably  thought  to  be  commimicated  to  this  righteous- 
ness from  its  respect  to  the  merit  of  Christ. 

2.  Whereas  persons  of  all  sorts  and  parties  take  various  ways 
in  the  assigning  of  an  interest  in  our  justification  to  our  own 
righteousness,  so  that  no  parties  are  agreed  about  it,  nor  many 
of  the  same  mind  among  themselves,  as  might  easily  be  mani- 
fested in  the  Papists,  Socinians,  and  others,  I  shall  so  far  as  it 
is  possible  in  the  ensuing  arguments  have  respect  to  them  all. 
For  my  design  is  to  prove,  that  it  has  no  such  interest  in  our 
justification  before  God,  as  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
should  not  be  esteemed  the  only  righteousness  whereon  we  are 
justified. 

And  first,  we  shall  produce  some  of  those  many  testimonies 
which  may  be  pleaded  to  this  purpose,  Psalm  cxxx.  3,  4.  "  If 
thou  Lord  shouldst  mark  iniquities,  0  Lord,  who  should  stand? 
But  there  is  forgiveness  with  thee  that  thou  mayest  be  feared." 
There  is  an  inquiry  included  in  these  words,  how  a  man,  how 
any  man  may  be  justified  before  God;  how  he  may  "stand," 
that  is,  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  be  accepted  with  him;  how 
he  shall  stand  in  judgment,  as  it  is  explained,  Psalm  i.  5.  "  The 


IMPUTATION    OF    THE    RIGHTEOUSNESS    OF    CHRIST. 


255 


wicked  shall  not  stand  in  the  judgment,"  shall  not  be  acquitted 
on  their  trial.  That  which  first  offers  itself  to  this  end,  is  his 
own  obedience.  For  this  the  law  requires  of  him  in  the  first 
place,  and  this  his  own  conscience  calls  upon  him  for.  But 
the  Psalmist  plainly  declares  that  no  man  can  thence  manage 
a  plea  for  his  justification  with  any  success.  And  the  reason 
is,  because  notwithstanding  the  best  of  the  obedience  of  the 
best  of  men,  there  are  iniquities  found  with  them  against  the 
Lord  their  God.  And  if  men  come  to  their  trial  before  God 
whether  they  shall  be  justified  or  condemned,  these  also  must 
be  heard  and  taken  into  the  account.  But  then  no  man  can 
"stand,"'  no  man  can  "be  justified"  as  it  is  elsewhere  express- 
ed. Wherefore  the  wisest  and  safest  course  is,  as  to  our  justi- 
fication before  God,  utterly  to  forego  this  plea,  and  not  to  in- 
sist on  our  own  obedience,  lest  our  sins  should  appear  also,  and 
be  heard.  No  reason  can  any  man  give  on  his  own  account, 
why  they  should  not  so  be.  And  if  they  be  so,  the  best  of 
men  will  be  cast  in  their  trial,  as  the  Psalmist  declares. 

Two  things  are  required  in  this  trial  that  a  sinner  may  stand. 
(I)  That  his  iniquities  be  not  observed,  for  if  they  be  so,  he  is 
lost  for  ever.  (2)  That  a  righteousness  be  produced  and  plead- 
ed that  will  endure  the  trial.  For  justification  is  upon  a  justi- 
fying righteousness.  For  the  first  of  these,  the  Psalmist  tells 
us,  it  must  be  through  pardon  or  forgiveness. '  But  there  is  for- 
giveness with  thee,  wherein  lies  our  only  relief  against  the  con- 
demnatory sentence  of  the  law  with  respect  to  our  iniquities; 
that  is,  through  the  blood  of  Christ;  for  in  him  "we  have  re- 
demption through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins," 
Ephes.  i.  7.  The  other  cannot  be  our  own  obedience,  because 
of  our  iniquities.  Wherefore  this  the  same  Psalmist  directs  us 
to.  Psalm  Ixxi.  IG.  "  I  will  go  in  the  strength  of  the  Lord  God; 
I  will  make  mention  of  thy  righteousness,  of  thine  only."  The 
righteousness  of  God,  and  not  his  own,  yea  in  opposition  to  his 
own,  is  the  only  plea  that  in  this  case  he  would  insist  upon. 

If  no  man  can  stand  a  trial  before  God  upon  his  own  obe- 
dience, so  as  to  be  justified  before  him,  because  of  his  own  per- 
sonal iniquities;  and  if  our  only  plea  in  that  case  be  the  right- 
eousness of  God,  the  righteousness  of  God  only  and  not  our 
own,  then  is  there  no  personal  inherent  righteousness  in  any 
believers  whereon  they  may  be  justified;  which  is  that  which 
is  to  be  proved. 

The  same  is  again  asserted  by  the  same  person,  and  that  more 
plainly  and  directly,  Psalm  cxliii.  2.  "Enter  not  into  judgment 


256  ARGUMENTS    FOR    JUSTIFICATION    BY    THE 

with  thy  servant,  for  in  thy  sight  shall  no  man  living  be  justi- 
fied." This  testimony  is  the  more  to  be  considered,  because  as  it 
is  derived  from  the  law,  Exod.  xxxiv.  7,  so  it  is  transferred  to 
the  gospel,  and  twice  urged  by  the  Apostle  to  the  same  pur- 
pose, Rom.  iii.  20.  Gal.  ii.  16. 

The  person  who  insists  on  this  plea  with  God,  professes 
himself  to  be  his  servant.  Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy 
servant;  that  is,  one  that  loved  him,  lea  red  him,  yielded  all 
sincere  obedience.  He  was  not  a  hypocrite,  not  an  unbe- 
liever, not  an  unregenerate  person,  who  had  performed  no 
works  but  such  as  were  legal,  such  as  the  law  required,  and 
such  as  were  done  in  the  strength  of  the  law  only;  such  works 
as  all  will  acknowledge  to  be  excluded  from  our  justification; 
and  which  as  many  judge,  are  only  those  which  are  so  ex- 
cluded. David  it  was,  who  was  not  only  converted,  a  true 
believer,  had  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  the  aids  of  special  grace 
in  his  obedience,  but  had  this  testimony  to  his  sincerity,  that 
he  was  "  a  man  after  God's  own  heart."  And  this  witness  had 
he  in  his  own  conscience  of  his  integrity,  uprightness,  and  per- 
sonal righteousness,  so  that  he  frequently  avows  them,  appeals 
to  God  concerning  the  truth  of  them,  and  pleads  them  as  a 
ground  of  judgment  between  him  and  his  adversaries.  We 
have  therefore  a  case  stated  in  the  instance  of  a  sincere  and 
eminent  believer,  who  excelled  most  in  inherent  personal 
righteousness. 

This  person  under  these  circumstances,  thus  testified  to, 
both  by  God  and  in  his  own  conscience,  as  to  the  sincerity, 
yea  as  to  the  eminency  of  his  obedience;  considers  how  he 
may  stand  before  God,  and  be  justified  in  his  sight.  Why 
does  he  not  now  plead  his  own  merits,  and  that,  if  not  ex  con- 
digno,  yet  at  least  ex  congruo,  he  deserved  to  be  acquitted  and 
justified?  But  he  left  this  plea  for  that  generation  of  men  that 
were  to  come  after,  who  would  "justify  themselves,"  and  des- 
pise others.  But  suppose  he  had  no  such  confidence  in  the 
merit  of  his  works  as  some  have  now  attained  to,  yet  why  does 
he  not  freely  enter  into  judgment  with  God,  put  it  to  the  trial 
whether  he  should  be  justified  or  not,  by  pleading  that  he  iiad 
fulfilled  the  condition  of  the  new  covenant,  that  everlasting 
covenant  which  God  made  with  him,  ordered  in  all  things  and 
sure?  For  upon  a  supposition  of  the  procurement  of  that  cove- 
nant and  the  terms  of  it,  by  Christ,  (for  I  suppose  the  virtue  of 
that  purchase  he  made  of  it,  is  allowed  to  extend  to  the  Old 
Testament)  this  was  all  that  was  required  of  him.     Is  it  not  to 


IMPUTATION   OF  THE    RIGHTEOUSNESS   OF   CHRIST.  257 

be  feared  that  he  was  one  of  them  who  see  no  necessity  of 
personal  lioUness  and  righteousness,  seeing  he  makes  no  men- 
tion of  it,  now  it  should  stand  him  in  the  greatest  stead?  At 
least  he  might  plead  his  faith  as  his  own  duty  and  work,  to  be 
imputed  to  him  for  righteousness.  But  whatever  the  reason 
be,  he  waves  them  all,  and  absolutely  deprecates  a  trial  upon 
them.  "  Come  not,"  says  he,  "  0  Lord,  into  judgment  with 
thy  servant,"  as  it  is  promised  that  he  who  believes  should  not 
come  into  judgment,  John  v.  24. 

And  if  this  holy  person  renounce  the  whole  consideration  of 
all  his  personal  inherent  righteousness,  in  every  kind,  and  will 
not  insist  upon  it  under  any  pretence,  in  any  place,  as  to  any 
use  in  his  justification  before  God,  we  may  safely  conclude 
there  is  no  such  righteousness  in  any  whereby  they  may  be 
justified.  And  if  men  would  but  leave  those  shades  and  cov- 
erts under  which  they  hide  themselves  in  their  disputations,  if 
they  would  forego  those  pretences  and  distinctions  wherewith 
they  delude  themselves  and  others,  and  tell  us  plainly  what 
plea  they  dare  make  in  the  presence  of  God,  from  their  own 
righteousness  and  obedience  that  tliey  may  be  justified  before 
him,  we  should  better  understand  their  minds  than  now  we 
do.  There  is  one  I  confess,  who  speaks  with  some  confidence 
to  this  purpose.  And  that  is  Vasquez  the  Jesuit.*  "  Inherent 
righteousness  renders  the  soul  so  just  and  holy,  and  conse- 
quently a  child  of  God,  that  in  fact  it  renders  it  an  heir  worthy 
of  eternal  glory.  Nay,  God  himself  cannot  cause  that  a  right- 
eous man  of  this  kind  should  not  be  worthy  of  eternal  bliss!" 
Is  it  not  sad  that  David  should  discover  so  much  ignorance  of 
the  worth  of  his  inherent  righteousness,  and  discover  so  much 
pusillanimity  with  respect  to  his  trial  before  God,  whereas  God 
himself  could  not  otherwise  order  it,  but  that  he  was  and  must 
be  worthy  of  eternal  blessedness? 

The  reason  the  Psalmist  gives  why  he  will  not  put  it  to  the 
trial  whether  he  should  be  acquitted  or  justified  upon  his  own 
obedience,  is  this  general  axiom,  "  For  in  thy  sight,"  or  before 
thee,  "  shall  no  man  living  be  justified."  This  must  be  spoken 
absolutely,  or  with  respect  to  some  one  way  or  cause  of  justifi- 
cation. If  it  be  spoken  absolutely,  then  this  work  ceases  for 
ever,  and  there  is  indeed  no  such  thing  as  justification  before 

*  Inhserens  Justitia  ita  rcddit  animam  justam  et  sanctam,  ac  proinde  filiam 
Dei,  ut  hoc  ipso  reddat  eani  licredem,  et  dignam  seterria  gloria;  imo  ipse  Deus 
cificcre  non  potest  ut  hujusmodi  Justus  dignus  non  sit  aeterna  beatitudine. 

9/2  ^- 


258  ARGUMENTS   FOR   JUSTIFICATION   BY    THE 

God.  But  this  is  contrary  to  the  whole  Scripture,  and  destruc- 
tive of  the  gospel.  Wherefore  it  is  spoken  with  respect  to  our 
own  obedience  and  works.  He  does  not  pray  absolutely  that 
he  would  not  enter  into  judgnrient  with  him,  for  this  were  to 
forego  his  government  of  the  world,  but  that  he  would  not  do 
so  on  the  account  of  his  own  duties  and  obedience.  But  if  so 
be  these  duties  and  that  obedience  answered  in  any  sense  or  way, 
what  is  required  of  us  as  a  righteousness  to  justification,  there 
was  no  reason  why  he  should  deprecate  a  trial  by  them  or 
upon  them.  But  whereas  the  Holy  Ghost  so  positively  affirms, 
that  no  man  living  shall  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  by  or 
upon  his  own  works  or  obedience,  it  is,  I  confess,  marvellous 
to  me,  that  some  should  so  interpret  the  Apostle  James,  as  if 
he  affirmed  the  express  contrary;  namely,  that  we  are  justi- 
fied in  the  sight  of  God  by  our  own  works,  whereas  indeed  he 
says  no  such  thing.  This  therefore  is  an  eternal  rule  of  truth, 
by,  or  upon  his  own  obedience,  no  man  living  can  be  justified 
in  the  sight  of  God.  It  will  be  said  "that  if  God  enter  into 
judgment  with  any  on  their  own  obedience  by  and  according 
to  the  law,  then  indeed  none  can  be  justified  before  him.  But 
God  judging  according  to  the  gospel,  and  the  terms  of  the  new- 
covenant,  men  may  be  justified  upon  their  own  duties,  works, 
and  obedience."  Ans.  (1)  The  negative  assertion  is  general, 
and  unlimited;  that  no  man  living  shall  (on  his  own  works  or 
obedience)  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God.  And  to  limit  it  to 
this  or  that  way  of  judging,  is  not  to  distinguish  but  to  contra- 
dict the  Holy  Ghost.  (2)  The  judgment  intended  is  only  with 
respect  to  justification,  as  is  plain  in  the  words.  But  there  is 
no  judgment  on  our  works  or  obedience,  with  respect  to  right- 
eousness and  justification,  but  by  the  proper  rule  and  measure 
of  them,  which  is  the  law.  If  they  will  not  endure  the  trial 
by  the  law,  they  will  endure  no  trial  as  to  righteousness  and 
justification  in  the  sight  of  God.  (3)  The  prayer  and  plea  of 
the  Psalmist  on  this  supposition,  are  to  this  purpose:  "  0  Lord 
enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  servant,  by  or  according  to 
the  law;  but  enter  into  judgment  with  me,  on  my  own  works 
and  obedience  according  to  the  rule  of  the  gospel;"  for  which 
he  gives  this  reason,  "  because  in  thy  sight  shall  no  man  living 
he  justified;"  how  remote  from  his  intention  need  not  be  de- 
clared. (4)  The  judgment  of  God  to  justification  according  to 
the  gospel,  does  not  proceed  on  our  works  of  obedience,  but 
upon  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  our  interest  therein  by 


IMPUTATION    OF  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS    OF   CHRIST.  259 

faith,  as  is  too  evident  to  be  modestly  denied.     Notwitlistand- 
ing  this  exception,  therefore,  hence  we  argue; — 

If  the  most  holy  of  the  servants  of  God,  in  and  after  a  course 
of  sincere  fruitful  obedience,  testified  to  by  God  himself,  and 
witnessed  in  their  own  consciences,  that  is,  whilst  they  have 
the  greatest  evidences  of  their  own  sincerity,  and  that  indeed 
they  are  the  servants  of  God,  do  renounce  all  thoughts  of  such 
a  righteousness  thereby,  as  whereon  in  any  sense  they  may  be 
justified  before  God;  then  there  is  no  such  righteousness  in  any, 
but  it  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone  imputed  to  us  where- 
on we  are  so  justified.  But  that  so  they  do,  and  ought  all  of 
them  so  to  do,  because  of  the  general  rule  here  laid  down,  that 
in  the  sight  of  God  no  man  living  shall  be  justified,  is  plainly 
affirmed  in  this  testimony. 

I  no  way  doubt  but  that  many  learned  men,  after  all  their 
pleas  for  an  interest  of  personal  righteousness  and  works  in  our  ' 
justification  before  God,  do  as  to  their  own  practice  betake 
theraslves  to  this  method  of  the  Psalmist,  and  cry  as  the  prophet 
Daniel  does  in  the  name  of  the  Church;  "we  do  not  present 
our  supplications  before  thee  for  our  righteousnesses,  but  for 
thy  great  mercies,"  Dan.  ix.  IS.  And  therefore  Job  (as  we 
have  formerly  observed)  after  a  long  and  earnest  defence  of 
his  own  faith,  integrity,  and  personal  righteousness,  wherein 
he  justified  himself  against  the  charge  of  Satan  and  men,  being 
called  to  plead  his  cause  in  the  sight,  of  God,  and  declare  on 
what  grounds  he  expected  to  be  justified  before  him,  renounces 
all  his  former  pleas,  and  betakes  himself  to  the  same  with  the 
Psalmist,  Job.  xl.  4;  xlii.  6. 

It  is  true  in  particular  cases,  and  as  to  some  especial  end  in 
the  providence  of  God,  a  man  may  plead  his  own  integrity  and 
obedience  before  God  himself.  So  did  Hezekiah  when  he 
prayed  for  the  sparing  of  his  life,  Isa.  xxxviii.  3.  "  Remember 
now,  0  Lord,  I  beseech  thee,  how  I  have  walked  before  thee 
in  truth,  and  with  a  perfect  heart,  and  have  done  that  which  is 
good  in  thy  sight."  This  I  say  may  be  done  with  respect  to 
temporal  deliverance,  or  any  other  particular  end  wherein  the 
glory  of  God  is  concerned.  So  was  it  greatly  in  sparing  the 
life  of  Hezekiah  at  that  time.  For  whereas  he  had  with  great 
zeal  and  industry  reformed  religion,  and  restored  the  true  wor- 
ship of  God,  the  cutting  him  off' in  the  midst  of  his  days,  would 
have  occasioned  the  idolatrous  multitude  to  have  reflected  on 
him  as  one  dying  under  a  token  of  divine  displeasure.  But 
none  ever  made  this  plea  before  God,  for  the  absolute  juslifica- 


260  ARGUMENTS    FOR    JUSTIFICATION    BV    THE 

tiou  of  their  persons.  So  Nehemiah  in  that  great  contest  which 
he  had  about  the  worship  of  God,  and  the  service  of  his  house, 
pleads  the  remembrance  of  it  before  God,  in  his  justification 
against  his  adversaries,  but  resolves  his  own  personal  accept- 
ance with  God  into  pardoning  mercy;  "and  spare  me  accord- 
ing to  the  multitude  of  thy  mercies,'^  Neh.  xiii.  22, 

Another  testimony  we  have  to  the  same  purpose,  in  the  pro- 
phet Isaiah,  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  Church,  Isa.  Ixiv.  6. 
"  We  are  all  as  an  unclean  thing,  and  all  our  righteousnesses 
are  as  filthy  rags."  It  is  true  the  prophet  in  this  place  makes 
a  deep  confession  of  the  sins  of  the  people.  But  yet  withal  he 
joins  himself  with  them,  and  asserts  the  especial  interest  of 
those  concerning  wliom  he  speaks  by  adoption;  that  God  was 
their  Father,  and  they  his  people,  Isa.  Ixiii.  16;  Ixiv.  8,  9.  And 
the  righteousnesses  of  all  that  are  the  children  of  God  are  of 
the  same  kind;  however  they  may  differ  in  degrees,  and  some 
of  them  may  be  more  righteous  than  others.  But  it  is  all  of  it 
described  to  be  such,  that  we  cannot,  I  think,  justly  expect  jus- 
tification in  the  sight  of  God,  upon  the  account  of  it.  But 
whereas  the  consideration  of  the  nature  of  our  inherent  right- 
eousness belongs  to  the  second  way  of  the  confirmation  of  our 
present  argument,  I  shall  not  further  here  insist  on  this  testi- 
mony. 

Many  others  also  to  the  same  purpose,  I  shall  wholly  omit; 
namely,  all  those  wherein  the  saints  of  God  or  the  Church,  in  an 
humble  acknowledgment  and  confession  of  their  own  sins,  be- 
take themselves  to  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  alone,  as  dis- 
pensed through  the  mediation  and  blood  of  Christ;  and  all  those 
wherein  God  promises  to  pardon  and  blot  out  our  iniejuilies  for 
his  own  sake,  for  his  name's  sake;  to  bless  the  people  not  for  any 
good  that  was  in  them,  nor  for  their  righteousness,  nor  for  their 
works,  the  consideration  whereof  he  excludes  from  having  any 
influence  on  any  actings  of  his  grace  towards  them;  and  all 
those  wherein  God  expresses  his  delight  in  them  alone,  and  his 
approbation  of  them  who  hope  in  his  mercy,  trust  in  his  name, 
betaking  themselves  to  him  as  their  only  refuge,  pronouncing 
them  accursed  who  trust  in  any  thing  else,  or  glory  in  them- 
selves; such  as  contain  singular  promises  to  them  that  betake 
themselves  to  God,  as  fatherless,  hopeless,  and  lost  in  them- 
selves. 

The  testimonies  which  are  multiplied  to  this  purpose,  suffi- 
ciently prove,  that  the  best  of  God's  saints  have  not  a  righteous- 
ness of  their  own,  whereon  they  can  in  any  sense  be  justified 


IMPUTATION    OF    THE    RIGHTEOUSNESS    OF    CHRIST.  261 

before  God.  For  they  all,  in  the  places  referred  to,  renounce 
any  such  righteousness  of  their  own,  all  that  is  in  them,  all  that 
they  have  done  or  can  do,  and  betake  themelves  to  grace  and 
mercy  alone.  And  whereas,  as  we  have  before  proved,  God 
in  the  justification  of  any,  exercises  grace  towards  them  with 
respect  to  a  righteousness,  whereon  he  declares  them  righteous 
and  accepted  before  him,  they  all  respect  a  righteousness  which 
is  not  inherent  in  us  but  imputed  to  us. 

Herein  lies  the  substance  of  all  that  we  inquire  into,  in  this 
matter  of  justification.  All  other  disputes  about  any  kind  of 
interest  for  our  own  works  and  obedience  in  our  justification 
before  God,  are  but  the  speculations  of  men  at  ease.  The  con- 
science of  a  convinced  sinner,  who  presents  himself  in  the  pre- 
sence of  God,  finds  all  practically  reduced  to  this  one  point, 
namely,  whether  he  will  trust  to  his  own  personal  inherent 
righteousness,  or  in  a  full  renunciation  of  it,  betake  himself  to 
the  grace  of  God,  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone.  In 
other  things  he  is  not  concerned.  And  let  a  man  phrase  his 
own  righteousness  as  he  pleases,  let  him  pretend  it  merito- 
rious, or  only  evangelical,  not  legal,  only  an  accomplishment 
of  the  condition  of  the  new  covenant,  a  cause  without  which 
he  cannot  be  justified,  it  will  not  be  easy  to  frame  his  mind  to 
any  confidence  in  it,  as  to  justification  before  God;  so  as  not  to 
deceive  him  in  the  issue.  -     .  ■ 

The  second  part  of  the  present  argument  is  taken  from  the 
nature  of  the  tiling  itself,  or  the  consideration  of  this  personal 
inherent  righteousness  of  our  own,  what  it  is  and  wherein  it 
consists,  and  of  what  use  it  may  be  in  our  justification.  '  And 
to  this  purpose  it  may  be  observed, 

1.  That  we  grant  an  inherent  righteousness  in  all  that  be- 
lieve, as  has  been  before  declared.  "  For  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit 
is  in  all  goodness  and  righteousness  and  truth,"  Ephes.  v.  9. 
"  Being  made  free  from  sin,  we  become  the  servants  of  right- 
eousness," Rom.  vi.  20.  And  our  duty  it  is  to  •'  follow  after 
righteousness,  godliness,  faith,  love,  meekness,"  1  Tim.  ii.  22. 
And  although  righteousness  be  mostly  taken  for  an  especial 
grace,  or  duty,  distinct  from  other  graces  and  duties,  yet  we 
acknowledge  that  it  may  be  taken  for  the  whole  of  our  obedi- 
ence before  God;  and  the  word  is  so  used  in  the  Scripture, 
where  our  own  righteousness  is  opposed  to  the  righteousness 
of  God.  And  it  is  either  habitual  or  actual.  There  is  an  ha- 
bitual righteousness  inherent  in  believers,  as  they  have  "put 
on  the  new  man  which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness 


262  ARGUMENTS    FOR    JUSTIFICATION   BY   THE 

and  true  holiness,"  Ephes,  iv.  24;  as  they  are  the  "  workman- 
ship of  God  created  in  Jesus  Christ  unto  good  works,"  ii.  8. 
And  there  is  an  actual  righteousness  coiisisiing  in  those  good 
works  whereto  we  are  so  created,  or  the  fruits  of  righteous- 
ness, which  are  to  the  praise  of  God  by  Jesus  Christ.  And 
concerning  this  righteousness  it  may  be  observed;  (1)  that 
men  are  said  in  the  Scripture,  to  be  just  or  righteous  by  it,  but 
no  one  is  said  to  be  justified  by  it  before  God;  (2)  that  it  is  not 
ascribed  to,  or  found  in  any,  but  those  that  are  actually  jus- 
tified in  order  of  nature  antecedent  thereto. 

This  being  the  constant  doctrine  of  all  the  reformed  churches 
and  divines,  it  is  an  open  calumny  whereby  the  contrary  is  as- 
cribed to  them,  or  any  of  those  who  beheve  the  imputation  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  for  our  justification  before  God.  So 
Bellarmine  affirms  that  no  Protestant  writers  acknowledge  an 
inherent  righteousness,  but  only  Bucer  and  Chemnitius,  when 
there  is  no  one  of  them,  by  whom  either  the  thing  itself,  or  the 
necessity  of  it,  is  denied.  But  some  excuse  may  be  made  for 
him,  from  the  manner  whereby  they  expressed  themselves, 
wherein  they  always  carefully  distinguished  between  inherent 
holiness,  and  that  righteousness  whereby  we  are  justified.  But 
we  are  now  told  by  one,  that  if  we  should  affirm  it  an  hundred 
times  he  could  scarce  believe  us.  This  is  somewhat  severe; 
for  although  he  speaks  but  to  one,  yet  the  charge  falls  equally 
upon  all  who  maintain  that  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  which  he  denies;  who  being  at  least  the  generality  of 
all  Protestant  divines,  they  are  represented  either  as  so  foolish, 
as  not  to  know  what  they  say,  or  so  dishonest  as  to  say  one 
thing  and  believe  another.  But  he  endeavours  to  justify  his 
censure  by  sundry  reasons;  and  first  he  says,  "  that  inherent 
righteousness  can  on  no  other  account  be  said  to  be  ours,  than 
that  by  it  we  are  made  righteous;  that  is,  that  it  is  the  condi- 
tion of  our  justification  required  in  the  new  covenant.  This 
being  denied,  all  inherent  righteousness  is  denied."  But  how 
is  this  proved?  what  if  one  should  say,  that  every  believer  is 
inherently  righteous,  but  yet  that  this  inherent  righteousness 
was  not  the  condition  of  his  justification,  but  rather  the  conse- 
quence of  it,  and  that  it  is  no  where  required  in  the  new  cove- 
nant as  the  condition  of  our  justification,  bow  shall  the  con- 
trary be  made  to  appear?  The  Scripture  plainly  affirms  that 
there  is  such  an  inherent  righteousness  in  all  that  believe;  and 
yet  as  plainly  that  we  are  justified  before  God,  by  faith  with- 
out works.     Wherefore  that  it  is  the  condition  of  our  justifica- 


IMPUTATION    OF   THE    RIGHTEOUSNESS    OF  CHRIST.  263 

tioii  and  so  antecedent  to  it,  is  expressly  contrary  to  that  of  the 
Apostle;  "  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  beheveth  on  him  that 
justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness," 
Rom.  iv.  5.  Nor  is  it  the  condition  of  the  covenant  itself,  as 
that  whereon  the  whole  grace  of  the  covenant  is  suspended. 
For  as  it  is  habitual,  wherein  the  denomination  of  righteous  is 
principally  taken,  it  is  a  grace  of  the  covenant  itself,  and  so  not 
a  condition  of  it,  Jerem.  xxxi.  33;  xxxii.  39.  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25 — 
27.  If  no  more  be  intended,  but  that  it  is  as  to  its  actual  ex- 
ercise what  is  indispensably  required  of  all  that  are  taken  into 
covenant,  in  order  to  the  complete  ends  of  ir,  we  are  agreed. 
But  hence  it  will  not  follow  that  it  is  the  condition  of  our  jus- 
tification. It  is  added,  "  that  all  righteousness  respects  a  law 
and  a  rule,  by  which  it  is  to  be  tried.  And  he  is  righteous, 
who  has  done  these  things  which  that  law  requires,  by  whose 
rule  he  is  to  be  judged."  But  (1)  this  is  not  the  way  whereby 
the  Scripture  expresses  our  justification  before  God,  which 
alone  is  under  consideration;  namely,  that  we  bring  to  it  a 
personal  righteousness  of  our  own,  answering  the  law  where- 
by wo  are  to  be  judged.  Yea  an  assertion  to  this  purpose  is 
foreign  to  the  gospel,  and  destructive  of  the  grace  of  God  by 
Jesus  Christ.  (2)  It  is  granted,  that  all  righteousness  respects 
a  law  as  the  rule  of  it;  and  so  does  this  whereof  we  speak, 
namely,  the  moral  law,  which  being  the  sole  eternal  unchange- 
able rule  of  righteousness,  if  it  do  not  in  the  substance  of  it  an- 
swer thereto,  a  righteousness  it  is  not.  But  this  it  does  in  as 
much,  as  that  so  far  as  it  is  habitual,  it  consists  in  the  renova- 
tion of  the  image  of  God,  wherein  that  law  is  written  in  our 
hearts;  and  all  the  actual  duties  of  it  are  as  to  the  substance  of 
them,  what  is  required  by  that  law.  But  as  to  the  maiuier  of 
its  com.munication  to  us,  and  of  its  performance  by  us  from 
faith  in  God  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  love  to  him,  as  the  author 
and  fountain  of  all  the  grace  and  mercy  procured  and  adminis- 
tered by  him,  it  has  respect  to  the  gospel.  What  will  follow 
from  hence?  why  that  lie  is  just  who  does  those  things  which 
that  law  requires  whereby  he  is  to  be  judged.  He  is  so  cer- 
tainly. For  "  not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before  God, 
but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified,"  Rom.  ii.  13.  "So 
Moses  describeth  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  that  the  man 
that  doth  those  things  shall  live  in  them,"  Rom.  x.  5.  But 
although  the  righteousness  whereof  we  discourse,  be  required 
by  the  law,  as  certainly  it  is,  lor  it  is  nothing  but  the  law  in 
our  hearts,  from  whence  we  walk  in  the  ways  and  keep  the 


264  ARGUMENTS    FOR    JUSTIFICATION    BY    THE 

Statutes  or  commandments  of  God;  yet  does  it  not  so  answer 
the  law,  as  that  any  man  can  be  justified  by  it.     But  then  it 
will  be  said,  that  if  it  does  not  answer  that  law  and  rule  where- 
by we  are  to  be  judged,  then  it  is  no  righteousness;  for  all 
righteousness  must  answer  the  law  whereby  it  is  required. 
And  I  say  it  is  most  true,  it  is  no  perfect  righteousness;  it  does 
not  so  answer  the  rule  and  law,  so  that  we  can  be  justified  by 
it,  or  safely  judged  on  it.     But  so  far  as  it  does  answer  the 
law,  it  is  a  righteousness,  that  is,  imperfectly  so,  and  therefore 
is  an  imperfect  righteousness;  which  yet  gives  the  denomina- 
tion of  righteous  to  them  that  have  it,  both  absolutely  and 
comparatively.    It  is  said  therefore,  "  that  it  is  the  law  of  grace 
or  the  gospel  from  whence  we  are  denominated  righteous  with 
this  righteousness."     But  that  we  are  by  the  gospel  denomi- 
nated righteous  from  any  righteousness  that  is  not  required  by 
the  moral  law,  will  not  be  proved.     Nor  does  the  law  of  grace 
or  the  gospel  any  where  require  of  us,  or  prescribe  to  us  this 
righteousness,  as  that  whereon  we  are  to  be  justified  before 
God.     It  requires  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  or  the  receiving  of  him 
as  he  is  proposed  in  the  promises  of  it,  in  all  that  are  to  be 
justified.     It  requires  in  like  manner  repentance  from  dead 
works  in  all  that  believe;  as  also  the  fruits  of  faith,  conversion 
to  God,  and  repentance,  in  the  works  of  righteousness,  which 
are  to  the  praise  of  God  by  Jesus  Christ;  with  perseverance 
therein  to  the  end.     And  all  this  may,  if  you  please,  be  called 
our  evangelical  righteousness,  as  being  our  obedience  to  God 
according  to  the  gospel.     But  yet  the  graces  and  duties  where- 
in it  consists,  do  no  more  perfectly  answer  the  commands  of 
the  gospel,  than  they  do  those  of  the  moral  law.     For  that  the 
gospel  abates  from  the  holiness  of  the  law,  and  makes*that  to 
be  no  sin  which  is  sin  by  the  law,  or  approves  absolutely  of 
less  intention  or  lower  degrees  in  the  love  of  God,  than  the 
law  does,  is  an  impious  imagination. 

And  that  the  gospel  requires  all  these  things  entirely  and 
equally,  as  the  condition  of  our  justification  before  God,  and  so 
antecedently  thereto,  is  not  yet  proved,  nor  ever  will  be.  It  is 
hence  concluded,  "  that  this  is  our  righteousness,  according  to 
the  evangelical  law  which  requires  it:  by  this  we  are  made 
righteous,  that  is,  not  guilty  of  the  non-performance  of  the  con- 
dition required  in  that  law."  And  these  things  are  said  to  be 
"  very  plain."  So  no  doubt  they  seemed  to  the  author;  to  us 
they  are  intricate  and  perplexed.  However,  I  wholly  deny 
that  our  faith,  obedience,  and  righteousness,  considered  as  ours, 


IMPUTATION    OF    THE    RIGHTEOUSNESS    OF    CHRIST.  265 

as  wrought  by  us,  although  they  are  all  accepted  with  God 
through  Jesus  Christ  according  to  the  grace  declared  in  the  gos- 
pel, do  perfectly  answer  the  commands  of  the  gospel,  requiring 
them  of  us,  as  to  matter,  manner,  and  degree;  and  therefore  it 
is  utterly  impossible  that  they  should  be  the  cause  or  condition 
of  our  justification  before  God.  Yet  in  the  explanation  of  these 
things,  it  is  added  by  the  same  author,  "  that  our  maimed  and 
imperfect  righteousness  is  accepted  to  salvation,  as  if  it  were 
every  way  absolute  and  perfect;  for  that  so  it  should  be,  Christ 
has  merited  by  his  most  perfect  righteousness."  But  it  is  jus- 
tification alone  and  not  salvation  that  we  discourse  about;  and 
that  the  works  of  obedience  or  righteousness,  have  another 
respect  to  salvation,  than  they  have  to  justification,  is  too  plainly 
and  too  often  expressed  in  the  Scripture,  to  be  modestly  denied. 
And  if  this  weak  and  imperfect  righteousness  of  ours,  be  es- 
teemed and  accepted  as  every  way  perfect  before  God,  then 
either  it  is  because  God  judges  it  to  be  perfect,  and  so  declares 
us  to  be- most  just,  and  justified  thereon  in  his  sight,  or  he 
judges  it  not  to  be  complete  and  perfect,  yet  declares  us  to  be 
perfectly  righteous  in  his  sight  thereby.  Neither  of  these  I  sup- 
pose can  well  be  granted.  It  will  therefore  be  said,  it  is  neither 
of  them;  but  "Christ  has  obtained  by  his  complete  and  most 
perfect  righteousness  and  obedience,  that  this  lame  and  imper- 
fect righteousness  of  ours  should  be  accepted  as  every  way 
perfect."  And  if  it  be  so,  it  may  be  some  will  think  it  best  not 
to  go  about  by  this  weak,  halt,  and  imperfect  righteousness, 
but  as  to  their  justification  betake  themselves  immediately  to 
the  most  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  I  am  sure  the 
Scripture  encourages  them  to.  And  they  will  be  ready  to  think, 
that  the  righteousness  which  cannot  justify  itself,  but  must  be 
obliged  to  grace  and  pardon  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  will 
never  be  able  to  justify  them.  But  what  will  ensue  on  this 
explanation  of  the  acceptance  of  our  imperfect  righteousness 
to  justification  upon  the  merit  of  Christ?  This  only  so  far  as 
I  can  discern,  that  Christ  has  merited  and  procnred,  either  that 
God  should  judge  that  to  be  perfect  which  is  imperfect,  and  de- 
clare us  perfectly  righteous  when  we  are  not  so,  or  that  he 
should  judge  the  righteousness  still  to  be  imperfect  (as  it  is)  but 
declare  us  to  be  perfectly  righteous  with  and  by  this  imperfect 
righteousness.  These  are  the  plain  paths  that  men  walk  in, 
who  cannot  deny  but  that  there  is  a  righteousness  required  to 
our  justification,  or  that  we  may  be  declared  righteous  before 
God,  in  the  sight  of  God,  according  to  the  judgment  of  God, 

23 


266  ARGUMENTS    FOR    JUSTIFICATION     BY    THE 

yet  denying  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  us, 
will  allow  of  no  other  righteousness  to  this  end,  but  that  which 
is  so  weak  and  imperfect  as  that  no  man  can  justify  it  in  his 
own  conscience,  nor  without  a  phrensy  of  pride,  can  think  or 
imagine  himself  perfectly  righteous  thereby. 

And  whereas  it  is  added,  that  "  he  is  blind  who  sees  not  that 
this  righteousness  of  ours  is  subordinate  to  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,"  I  must  acknowledge  myself  otherwise  minded,  not- 
withstanding the  severity  of  this  censure.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  subordinate  to  this  righteousness 
of  our  own,  as  here  it  is  stated,  and  not  the  contrary.  For  the 
end  of  all  is  our  acceptance  with  God  as  righteous.  But  ac- 
cording to  these  thoughts,  it  is  our  own  righteousnesses  where- 
on we  are  immediately  accepted  with  God  as  righteous.  Only 
Christ  has  deserved  by  his  righteousness,  that  our  righteous- 
ness may  be  so  accepted,  and  is  therefore  as  to  the  end  of  our 
justification  before  God,  subordinate  thereto. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression,  and  to  proceed  to  our 
argument;  this  personal  inherent  righteousness  which  accord- 
ing to  the  Scripture  we  allow  in  believers,  is  not  that  whereby, 
or  wherewith,  we  are  justified  before  God.  For  it  is  not  per- 
fect, nor  perfectly  answers  any  rule  of  obedience  that  is  given 
to  us,  and  so  cannot  be  our  righteousness  before  God  to  our 
justification.  Wherefore  we  must  be  justified  by  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  imputed  to  us,  or  be  justified  without  respect  to 
any  righteousness,  or  not  be  justified  at  all.  And  a  threefold 
imperfection  accompanies  it. 

First,  as  to  the  principle  of  it,  as  it  is  habitually  resident  in 
us.  For  (1)  There  is  a  contrary  principle  of  sin  abiding  with 
it  in  the  same  subject  whilst  we  are  in  this  world.  For  con- 
trary qualities  may  be  in  the  same  subject  whilst  neither  of 
them  is  in  the  highest  degree.  So  it  is  in  this  case.  Gal.  v.  17. 
"  For  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against 
the  flesh,  and  these  are  contrary  one  to  the  other,  so  that  ye 
cannot  do  the  things  that  ye  would."  (2)  None  of  the  faculties 
of  our  souls  are  perfectly  renewed  whilst  we  are  in  this  world. 
"The  inward  man  is  renewed  day  by  day,"  2  Cor.  iv.  16. 
And  we  are  always  to  be  purging  ourselves  from  all  pollution 
of  flesh  and  spirit,  2  Cor.  vii.  1.  And  hereto  belongs  whatever 
is  spoken  in  the  Scripture,  whatever  believers  find  in  them- 
selves by  experience  of  the  remainders  of  indwelling  sin,  in 
the  darkness  of  our  minds,  whence  at  best  we  know  but  in 
part,  and  through  ignorance  are  ready  to  wander  out  of  the 


Af 


IMPUTATION    OF    THE    RIGHTEOUSNESS    OF    CHRIST.  267 

way,  Heb.  v.  2;  in  the  deceitfiilness  of  the  heart,  and  disorder 
of  affections,  I  understand  not  how  any  one  can  think  of  plead- 
ing his  own  righteousness  in  the  sight  of  God,  or  suppose  that 
he  can  be  justified  by  it  upon  this  single  account  of  the  imper- 
fection of  its  inherent  habit  or  principle.  Such  notions  arise 
from  the  ignorance  of  God  and  ourselves,  or  the  want  of  a  due 
consideration  of  the  one  and  the  other.  Neither  can  I  appre- 
hend how  a  thousand  distinctions  can  safely  introduce  it  into 
any  place  or  consideration  in  our  justification  before  God.  He 
that  can  search  in  any  measure  by  a  spiritual  light  into  his  own 
heart  and  soul,  will  find,  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,"  a 
better  plea  than  any  he  can  be  furnished  with  from  any  worth 
of  his  own.  "  What  is  man  that  he  should  be  clean,  and  he 
that  is  born  of  a  woman  that  he  should  be  righteous?"  Job.  xv. 
14 — 16;  xviii.  19.  Hence  says  Gregory  in  Job  ix.  lib.  9.  cap.  14. 
Ut  ssepe  dixhnus,  omnisjustitia  hinnana  injustitia  esse  con- 
vincitiir  si  distincte  judicetur.  Bernard  speaks  to  the  same 
purpose,  and  almost  in  the  same  words,  Serm.  fest.  omn.  sanct. 
Quid  potest  esse  omnis  humana  justitia  coram  Deo?  nonne 
juxta  prophetani,  velut  pannus  rnenstrnatus  reputabitur;  et 
si  distinctf'  judicetur,  injustitia  invenietur  omnis  justitia  nos- 
tra et  m,inus  habens.  A  man  cannot  be  justified  in  any  sense 
by  that  righteousness  which  upon  trial  will  appear  rather  to  be 
an  unrighteousness. 

2.  It  is  imperfect  with  respect  to  every  act  and  duty  of  it, 
whether  internal  or  external.  There  is  iniquity  cleaving  to  our 
holy  things,  and  "all  our  righteousnesses  are  as  filthy  rags," 
Isa.  Ixiv.  8.  It  has  been  often  and  well  observed,  that  if  a 
man,  the  best  of  men,  were  left  to  choose  the  best  of  his  works 
that  ever  he  performed,  and  thereon  to  enter  into  judgment 
with  God,  if  only  under  this  notion,  that  he  has  answered  and 
fulfilled  tlie  condition  required  of  him,  as  to  his  acceptance 
witli  God,  it  would  be  his  wisest  course,  (at  least  it  would  be 
so  in  the  judgment  of  Bellarmine)  to  renounce  it,  and  betake 
himself  to  grace  and  mercy  alone. 

3.  It  is  imperfect  by  reason  of  the  incursion  of  actual  sins. 
Hence  our  Saviour  has  taught  us  continually  to  pray  for  the 
forgiveness  of  our  sins;  and  "  if  we  say,  that  we  have  no  sin 
we  deceive  ourselves;"  for  "in  many  things  we  offend  all." 
And  what  confidence  can  be  placed  in  this  righteousness,  which 
those  who  plead  for  it  in  this  cause,  acknowledge  to  be  weak, 
maimed,  and  imperfect. 

I  have  but  touched  on  these  things,  which  might  have  been 


268  ARGUMENTS    FOR    JUSTIFICATION    BY    THE 

handled  at  large,  and  are  indeed  of  great  consideration  in  our 
present  argument.  But  enough  has  been  spoken  to  manifest, 
that  although  this  righteousness  of  believers  be  on  other  ac- 
counts like  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  that  "glads  the  heart  of  God 
and  man,"  yet  as  to  our  justification  before  God,  it  is  like  the 
wood  of  the  vine,  a  pin  is  not  to  be  taken  from  it  to  hang  any 
weight  of  this  cause  upon. 

Two  things  are  pleaded  in  the  behalf  of  this  righteousness 
and  its  influence  on  our  justification.  (1)  That  it  is  abso- 
lutely complete  and  perfect.  Hence  some  say  that  they  are 
perfect  and  sinless  in  this  life.  They  have  no  more  concern  in 
the  mortification  of  sin,  and  growth  in  grace.  And  indeed  this 
is  the  only  rational  pretence  of  ascribing  our  justification  before 
God  thereto.  For  were  it  so  with  any,  what  should  hinder 
him  from  being  justified  thereon  before  God,  but  only  that  he 
has  been  a  sinner,  which  spoils  the  whole  market?  But  this 
vain  imagination  is  so  contrary  to  the  Scripture,  and  the  expe- 
rience of  all  that  know  the  terror  of  the  Lord,  and  what  it  is  to 
Avalk  humbly  before  him,  that  I  shall  not  insist  on  the  refuta- 
tion of  it.  (2)  It  is  pleaded,  that  although  this  righteousness 
be  not  an  exact  fulfilling  of  the  moral  law,  yet  is  it  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  condition  of  the  new  covenant,  or  entirely  an- 
swers the  law  of  grace,  and  all  that  is  required  of  us  therein. 

Ans.  1.  This  wholly  takes  away  sin  and  the  pardoii  of  it, 
no  less  than  does  the  conceit  of  sinless  perfection  which  we 
now  rejected.  For  if  our  obedience  answer  the  only  law  and 
rule  of  it  whereby  it  is  to  be  tried,  measured  and  judged,  then 
is  there  no  sin  in  us  nor  need  of  pardon.  No  more  is  required 
of  any  man  to  keep  him  absolutely  free  from  sin,  but  that  he 
fully  answer,  and  exactly  comply  with  the  rule  and  law  of  his 
obedience  whereby  he  must  be  judged.  On  this  supposition 
therefore  there  is  neither  sin,  nor  any  need  of  the  pardon  of  it. 
To  say  that  there  is  still  both  sin,  and  need  of  pardon  with  re- 
spect to  the  moral  law  of  God,  is  to  confess  that  law  to  be  the 
rule  of  our  obedience,  which  this  righteousness  no  way  an- 
swers; and  therefore  none  by  it  can  be  justified  in  the  sight  of 
God. 

2.  Although  this  righteousness  he  accepted  in  justified  per- 
sons by  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  yet  consider  the 
principle  of  it,  with  all  the  acts  and  duties  wherein  it  consists, 
as  they  are  required  and  prescribed  in  the  gos:pel  to  us,  and 
they  do  neither  jointly  nor  severally  fulfil  and  answer  the  com- 
mands of  the  gospel,  no  more  than  they  do  the  commands  of 


IMPUTATION    OF    THE    RIGHTEOUSNESS    OF    CHRIST.  269 

the  law.  Wherefore  they  cannot  all  of  them  constitute  a  right- 
eousness consisting  in  an  exact  conformity  to  the  rules  of  the 
gospel,  or  the  law  of  it.  For  it  is  impious  to  imagine  that  the 
gospel  requiring  any  duty  of  us,  suppose  the  love,  of  God, 
makes  any  abatement,  as  to  the  matter,  manner,  or  degrees  of 
perfection  in  it,  from  what  was  required  by  the  law.  Does 
the  gospel  require  a  lower  degree  of  love  to  God,  a  less  perfect 
love  than  the  law  did?  God  forbid.  The  same  may  be  said 
concerning  the  inward  frame  of  our  natures,  and  all  other 
duties  whatever;  wherefore  although  this  righteousness  is  ac- 
cepted in  justified  persons,  (as  God  had  respect  to  Abel,  and 
then  to  his  offering)  in  the  way  and  to  the  ends  that  shall  be 
afterwards  declared;  yet  as  it  relates  to  the  commands  of  the 
gospel,  both  it  and  all  the  duties  of  it,  are  no  less  imperfect, 
than  it  would  be,  if  it  should  be  left  to  its  trial  by  the  law  of 
creation  only. 

3.  I  know  not  what  some  men  intend.  On  the  one  hand 
they  affirm  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  enlarged  and  height- 
ened the  spiritual  sense  of  the  moral  law,  and  not  gnly  so,  but 
added  to  it  new  precepts  of  more  exact  obedience  than'  it 
required.  But  on  the  other  they  would  have  him  to  have 
brought  down  or  taken  off  the  obligation  of  the  law,  so  that  a 
man,  according  as  he  has  adapted  it  to  the  use  of  the  gospel, 
shall  be  judged  of  God  to  have  fulfilled  the  whole  obedience 
which  it  requires,  who  never  answered  any  one  precept  of  if 
according  to  its  original  sense  and  obligation.  For  so  it  must 
be,  if  this  imperfect  righteousness  he  on  any  account  esteemed 
a  fulfilling  of  the  rule  of  our  obedience,  so  that  thereon  we 
should  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God. 

4.  This  opinion  puts  an  irreconcilable  difference  between  the 
law  and  the  gospel,  not  to  be  composed  by  any  distinctions. 
For  according  to  it,  God  declares  by  the  gospel  a  man  to  be 
perfectly  righteous,  justified  and  blessed,  upon  the  considera- 
tion of  a  righteousness  that  is  imperfect;  and  in  the  law  he 
pronounces  every  one  accursed  who  continues  not  in  all  things 
required  by  it,  and  as  they  are  therein  required.  But  it  is  said 
that  this  righteousness  is  not  otherwise  to  be  considered,  but 
as  the  condition  of  the  new  covenant  whereon  we  obtain  re- 
mission of  sins  on  the  sole  account  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ 
wherein  our  justification  consists. 

Ans.  1.  Some  indeed  do  say  so,  but  not  all,  not  the  most, 
not  the  most  leariied  with  whom  in  this  controversy  we  have 
to  do.     And  in  our  pleas  for  what  we  believe  to  be  the  truth, 


270  ARGUMENTS    FOR    JUSTIFICATION     BY    THE 

we  cannot  always  have  respect  to  every  private  opinion  where- 
by it  is  opposed.  (2)  That  justification  consists  only  in  the 
pardon  of  sin,  is  so  contrary  to  the  signification  of  the  word, 
the  constant  use  of  it  in  the  Scripture,  the  common  notion  of  it 
amongst  mankind,  the  sense  of  men  in  their  own  consciences 
who  find  themselves  under  an  obligation  to  duty,  and  express 
testimonies  of  the  Scripture,  that  I  somewhat  wonder,  how  it 
can  be  pretended.  But  it  shall  be  spoken  to  elsewhere.  (3)  If 
this  righteousness  be  the  fulfilling  of  the  condition  of  the  new 
covenant'wherepn  we  are  justified,  it  must  be  in  itself  such  as 
exactly  answers  some  rule  or  law  of  righteousness,  and  so  be 
perfect,  which  it  does  not;  and  therefore  cannot  bear  the  place 
of  a'righteousness  in  our  justification,  (4)  That  this  righteous- 
ness is  the  condition  of  our  justification  before  God,  or  of  that 
jnterest  m  the  righteousness  of  Christ  whereby  we  are  justified, 
is  not  proved,  nor  ever  will  be. 

I  shall  briefly  add  two  or  three  considerations  excluding  this 
personal  righteousness  from  its  pretended  interest  in  our  justi- 
fication, and  cibse.  ihis  argument. 

1.  That  righteousness  which  neither  answers  the  law  of  God, 
nor  the  end'pf  God  in  our  justification  by  the  gospel,  is  not  that 
whereon  we'are  justified.  But  such  is  this  inherent  righteous- 
ness of  believers,  even  of  the  best  of  them.  (1)  That  it  answers 
not  ihe  law  of  God  has  been  proved  from  its  imperfection, 
^or  will  any  sober  person  pretend  that  it  exactly  and  perfectly 
fulfils;t^he  law  of  our  creation.  And  this  law  cannot  be  dis- 
annulled whilst  the  relation  of  creator  and  re  warder  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  creatures  capable  of  obedience  and  rewards  on 
the  other,  continues.  Wherefore  that  which  answers  not  this 
law  will  not  justify  us.  For  God  will  not  abrogate  that  law,  that 
the  transgressors  of  it  may  be  justified.  "  Do  we,"  saith  the 
Apostle  (l)y  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  without  works) 
"  make  void  the  law?  God  forbid;  yea,  we  establish  it,"  Rom. 
iii.  31.  (2)  That  we  should  be  justified  with  respect  to  it,  an- 
swers not  the  end  of  God  in  our  justification  by  the  gospel. 
For  this  is  to  take  away  all  glorying  in  ourselves,  and  all  occa- 
sion of  it,  every  thing  that  might  give  countenance  to  it,  so 
that  the  whole  might  he  to  the  praise  of  his  own  grace  by 
Christ,  Rom.  iii.  27;  1  Cor.  i.  29 — 31.  How  it  is  faith  alone  that 
gives  glory  to  God  herein,  has  been  declared  in  the  description 
of  its  nature.  But  it  is  evident  that  no  man  has,  or  can  have 
possibly  any  other,  any  greater  occasion  of  boasting  in  himself, 
with  respect  to  his  justification,  than  that  he  is  justified  on  his 


IMPUTATION    OF   THE    RIGHTEOUSNESS    OF    CHRIST.  271 

performance  of  that  condition  of  it,  which  consists  in  his  own 
personal  righteousness. 

2.  No  man  was  ever  justified  by  it  in  his  own  conscience, 
much  less  can  he  be  justified  by  it  in  the  sight  of  God.  For  God 
is  greater  than  our  hearts  and  knows  all  things.  There  is  no 
man  so  righteous,  so  holy  in  the  whole  world,  nor  ever  was, 
but  his  own  conscience  would  charge  him  in  many  things  with 
his  coming  short  of  the  obedience  required  of  him,  in  matter  or 
manner,  in  the  kind  or  degrees  of  perfection.  For  "  there  is  no 
man  that  liveth  and  sinneihnot."  Absolutely  Nemo  absolvitiir 
sejudice.  Let  any  man  be  put  to  a  trial  in  himself  whether  he 
can  be  justified  in  his  own  conscience,  by  his  own  righteous- 
ness, and  he  will  be  cast  in  the  trial  at  his  own  judgment-seat. 
And  he  that  does  not  thereon  conclude,  that  there  must  be 
another  righteousness  whereby  he  must  be  justified,  that  origi- 
nahy  and  inherently  is  not  his  own,  will  be  at  a  loss  for  peace 
with  God.  But  it  will  be  said,  that  men  may  be  justified  in 
their  consciences,  that  they  have  performed  the  condition  of 
the  new  covenant,  which  is  all  that  is  pleaded  with  respect  to 
this  righteousness.  And  I  no  way  doubt  but  that  men  may 
have  a  comfortable  persuasion  of  their  own  sincerity  in  obe- 
dience, and  satisfaction  in  the  acceptance  of  it  with  God.  But 
it  is  when  they  try  it,  as  an  effect  of  faith,  whereby  they  are 
justified,  and  not  as  the  condition  of  their  justification.  Let  it 
be  thus  stated  in  their  minds  that  God  requires  a  personal  right- 
eousness in  order  to  then- justification,  whereon  their  determi- 
nation must  be,  this  is  my  righteousness  which  I  present  to 
God  that  I  may  be  justified,  and  they  will  find  difficulty  in  ar- 
riving at  it,  if  i  be  not  much  mistaken. 

3.  None  of  the  holy  men  of  old/.whose  faith  and  experience 
are  recorded  in  the  Scripture,  did  ever  plead  their  own  per- 
sonal righteousness   under  any  notion  of  it,  either  as  to  the 
merit  of  their  works,  or  as  to  their  complete  performance  of 
■  Avhat  was  required  of  them  as  the  condition  of  the  covenant  in 
..^order  to  their  justification  before  God.     This  has  been  spoken 
"  to  before. 


%' 


272  THE     NATURE    OF    THE    OBEDIENCE 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE  NATURE  OF  THE  OBEDIENCE  THAT  GOD  REQUIRES  OF  US.   THE 
ETERNAL  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  LAW  THERETO. 

Our  second  argument  shall  be  taken  from  the  nature  of  that 
obedience  or  righteousness  which  God  requires  of  us,  that  we 
may  be  accepted  of  liim  and  approved  by  him.  This  being  a 
large  subject  if  fully  to  be  handled,  I  shall  reduce  what  is  of 
our  present  concernment  in  it  to  some  special  heads  or  obser- 
vations, 

1.  God  being  a  most  perfect,  and  therefore  a  most  free  agent, 
all  his  actings  towaj-ds  mankind,  all  his  dealings  with  them,  all 
his  constitutions  and  laws  concerning  them,  are  to  be  resolved 
into  his  own  sovereign  will  and  pleasure.  No  other  reason  can 
be  given  of  the  original,  of  the  whole  system  of  them.  This 
the  Scripture  testifies  to,  Psal.  cxv.  3;  cxxxv,  6;  Prov.  xvi.  4; 
Ephes.  i.  9,  11;  Rev.  iv.  11.  The  being,  existence,  and  natu- 
ral circumstances  of  all  creatures,  being  an  effect  of  the  free 
counsel  and  pleasure  of  God,  all  that  belongs  to  them  must  be 
ultimately  resolved  thereinto. 

2.  Upon  a  supposition  of  some  free  acts  of  the  will  of  God 
and  the  execution  of  them,  constituting  an  order  in  the  things 
that  outwardly  are  of  him,  and  their  mutual  respect  to  one 
another,  some  things  may  become  necessary  in  this  relative 
state,  whose  beii]g  was  not  absolutely  necessary  in  its  own 
nature.  The  order  of  all  things  and  their  mutual  respect  to 
one  another,  depends  on  God's  free  constitution,  no  less  than 
their  being  absolutely.  But  upon  a  supposition  of  that  consti- 
tution, thmgs  have  in.  that  order,  a  necessary  relation  one  to 
another,  and  all  of  them  to  God.     Wherefore 

3.  It  was  a  free  sovereign  act  of  God's  will  to  create,  effect 
or  produce  such  a  creature  as  man  is;  that  is,  of  a  nature  intel- 
ligent, rational,  capable  of  moral  obedience  with  rewards  and 
punishments.  But  on  asupposition  hereof,  man  so  freely  made, 
could  not  be  governed  any  other  ways  but  by  a  moral  instru- 
ment of  law  or  rule,  influencing  the  rational  faculties  of  his  soul 
to  obedieu'ce,  and  guiding  him  therein.  He  could  not  in  that 
constitution  be  contained  under  the  rule  of  God,  by  a  mere 
physical  influence,  as  are  all  irrational  or  brute  creatures.  To 
suppose  it,  is  to  deny  or  destroy  the   essential  faculty   and 


THAT    GOD    REQUIRES    OF    US.  273 

powers  wherewith  he  was  created.  Wherefore  on  the  suppo- 
sition of  his  being,  it  was  necessary  that  a  law  or  rule  of  obe- 
dience should  be  prescribed  to  liim,  and  be  the  instrument  of 
God's  government  towards  him. 

4.  This  necessary  law,  so  far  forth  as  it  was  necessary,  did 
immediately  and  unavoidably  ensue  upon  the  constitution  of 
our  natures  in  relation  to  God.  Supposing  the  nature,  being, 
and  properties  of  God,  with  the  works  of  creation  on  the  one 
hand;  and  supposing  the  being,  existence,  and  the  nature  of 
man,  with  his  necessary  relation  to  God,  on  the  other,  the  law 
•whereof  we  speak  is  nothing  but  the  rule  of  that  relation,  which 
can  neitlier  be,  nor  be  preserved,  without  it.  Hence  is  this  law 
eternal,  indispensable,  admitting  of  no  other  variation,  than 
does  the  relation  between  God  and  man,  which  necessarily 
arises  from  their  distinct  natures  and  properties. 

5.  The  substance  of  this  law  was,  that  man  adhering  to  God, 
absolutely,  universally,  unchangeably,  uninterruptedly,  in  trust, 
love,  and  fear,  as  the  chiefest  good,  the  first  Author  of  his  be- 
ing, of  all  the  present  and  future  advantages  whereof  it  was 
capable,  should  yield  obedience  to  him,  with  respect  to  his  in- 
finite wisdom,  righteousness  and  almighty  power,  to  protect, 
reward,  and  punish,  in  all  things  known  to  be  his  will  and 
pleasure,  either  by  the  light  of  his  own  mind,  or  especial  reve- 
lation made  to  him.  And  it  is  evident  that  no  more  is  required 
to  the  constitution  and  establishment  of  this  law,  but  that  God 
be  God,  and  man  be  man,  with  the  necessary  relation  that  nuist 
thereon  ensue  between  them.     Wherefore 

6.  This  law  eternally  and  unchangeably  obliges  all  men  to 
obedience  to  God;  even  that  obedience  which  it  requires,  and 
in  the  manner  wherein  it  requires  it.  For  both  the  substance 
of  what  it  requires,  and  the  manner  of  the  performance  of  it, 
as  to  measures  and  degrees,  are  equally  necessary  and  unalter- 
able, upon  the  suppositions  laid  down.  For  God  cannot  deny 
himself,  nor  is  the  nature  of  man  changed  as  to  the  essence  of 
it  whereto  alone  respect  is  had  in  this  law,  by  any  thing  that 
can  fall  out.  And  although  God  might  superadd  to  the  original 
obligations  of  this  law,  what  arbitrary  commands  he  pleased, 
such  as  did  not  necessarily  proceed  or  arise  from  the  relation 
between  him  and  us,,  which  might  be,  and  be  continued,  with- 
out them;  yet  would  they  be  resolved  into  that  principle  of 
this  law,  that  God  in  all  things  was  absolutely  to  be  trusted 
and  obeyed. 

7.  "Known  unto  God  are  all  his  works  from  the  foundation 


274  THE    NATURE    OF   THE    OBEDIENCE 

of  the  world."  In  the  constitution  of  this  order  of  things  he 
made  it  possible,  and  foresaw  it  would  be  future,  that  man 
would  rebel  against  the  preceptive  power  of  this  law,  and  dis- 
turb that  order  of  thmgs  wherein  he  was  placed  under  his  mo- 
ral rule.  This  gave  occasion  to  that  effect  of  infinite  divine 
righteousness,  in  constituting  the  punishment  that  man  should 
fall  under  upon  his  transgression  of  this  law.  Neither  was  this 
an  effect  of  arbitrary  will  and  pleasure,  any  more  than  the  law 
itself  was.  Upon  the  supposition  of  the  creation  of  man,  the 
law  mentioned  was  necessary  from  all  the  divine  properties  of 
the  nature  of  God ;  and  upon  a  supposition  that  man  would 
transgress  that  law,  God  being  now  considered  as  his  ruler  and 
governor,  the  constitution  of  the  punishment  due  to  his  sin  and 
transgression  of  it,  was  a  necessary  effect  of  divine  righteous- 
ness. This  it  would  not  have  been,  had  the  law  itself  been 
arbitrary.  But  that  being  necessary,  so  was  the  penalty  of  its 
transgression.  Wherefore  the  constitution  of  this  penalty,  is 
liable  to  no  more  change,  alteration,  or  abrogation,  than  the 
law  itself,  without  an  alteration  in  the  state  and  relation  be- 
tween God  and  man. 

S.  This  is  that  law,  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  came  not  to 
destroy,  bat  to  fulfil,  that  he  might  be  the  end  of  it  for  right- 
eousness to  them  that  beheve.  This  law  he  abrogated  not,  nor 
could  do  so  without  a  destruction  of  the  relation  that  is  be- 
tween God  and  man,  arising  from  or  ensuing  necessarily  on 
their  distinct  beings  and  properties.  But  as  this  cannot  be  de- 
stroyed, so  the  Lord  Christ  came  to  a  contrary  end  ;  namely, 
to  repair  and  restore  it  where  it  was  weakened.     Wherefore 

9.  This  law,  the  law  of  sinless  perfect  obedience,  with  its 
sentence  of  the  punishment  of  death  on  all  transgressors,  does 
and  must  abide  in  force  for  ever  in  this  world;  for  there  is  no 
more  required  hereto,  but  that  God  be  God,  and  man  be  man. 
Yet  shall  this  be  further  proved. 

1.  There  is  nothing,  not  one  word  in  the  Scripture  intimating 
any  alteration  in,  or  abrogation  of  this  law;  so  that  any  thing 
should  not  be  duty  which  it  makes  to  be  duty,  or  any  thing  not 
be  sin,  which  it  makes  to  be  sin,  either  as  to  matter  or  degrees; 
or  that  the  thing  which  it  makes  to  be  sin,  or  which  is  sin  by 
the  rule  of  it,  should  not  merit  and  deserve  that  punishment 
which  is  declared  in  the  sanction  of  it,  or  threatened  by  it. 
"The  wages  of  sin  is  death."  If  any  testimony  of  Scripture 
can  be  produced  to  either  of  these  purposes,  namely,  that  either 
any  thing  is  not  sin,  in  the  way  of  omission  or  commission,  in 


r 


THAT    GOD    REaUIRES    OF    US.  275 

the  matter  or  manner  of  its  performance,  which  is  made  to  be 
so  by  this  law.  or  that  any  such  sin,  or  any  thing  that  would 
have  been  sin  by  this  law,  is  exempted  from  the  punishment 
threatened  by  it,  as  to  merit  or  desert,  it  shall  be  attended  to. 
It  is  therefore  in  universal  force  towards  all  mankind.  There 
is  no  relief  in  this  case;  but  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God." 

In  exception  hereto  it  is  pleaded,  that  when  it  was  first  given 
to  Adam,  it  was  the  rule  and  instrument  of  a  covenant  between 
God  and  man,  a  covenant  of  works  and  perfect  obedience.  But 
upon  the  entrance  of  sin,  it  ceased  to  have  the  nature  of  a  co- 
venant to  any.  And  it  has  so  ceased,  that  on  an  impossible 
supposition,  that  any  man  should  fulfil  the  perfect  righteous- 
ness of  it,  yet  should  he  not  be  justified  or  obtain  the  benefit 
of  the  covenant  thereby.  It  is  not  therefore  only  become  inef- 
fectual to  us  as  a  covenant  by  reason  of  our  weakness  and  dis- 
ability to  perform  it,  but  it  has  ceased  in  its  own  nature  so  to 
be.  But  these  things  as  they  are  not  to  our  present  purpose,  so 
are  they  wholly  unproved.    For 

1.  Our  discourse  is  not  about  the  federal  adjunct  of  the  law, 
but  about  its  moral  nature  only.  It  is  enough,  that  as  a  law, 
it  continues  to  oblige  all  mankind  to  perfect  obedience  under 
its  original  penalty.  For  hence  it  will  unavoidably  follow,  that 
unless  the  commands  of  it  be  complied  with  and  fulfilled,  the 
penalty  will  fall  on  all  that  transgress  it.  And  those  who  grant 
that  this  lav/  is  still  in  force  as  to  its  being  a  rule  of  obedience, 
or  as  to  its  requiring  duties  of  us,  grant  all  that  we  desire.  For 
it  requires  no  obedience,  but  what  it  did  in  its  original  constitu- 
tion, that  is,  sinless  and  perfect;  and  it  requires  no  duty,  nor 
prohibits  any  sin,  but  under  the  penalty  of  death  upon  disobe- 
dience. 

2.  It  is  true,  tliat  he  who  is  once  a  sinner,  if  he  should  after- 
wards yield  all  (hat  perfect  obedience  to  God  that  the  law  re- 
quires, could  not  thereby  obtain  the  benefit  of  the  promise  of 
the  covenant.  But  the  sole  reason  of  it  is,  because  he  is  antece- 
dently a  sinner,  and  so  obnoxious  to  the  curse  of  the  law.  And 
no  man  can  be  obnoxious  to  its  curse,  and  have  a  right  to  its 
promise  at  the  same  time.  But  so  to  lay  the  supposition,  that 
the  same  person  is  by  any  means  free  from  the  curse  due  to 
sin,  and  then  to  deny  that,  upon  the  performance  of  that  perfect 
sinless  obedience  which  the  law  requires,  he  should  not  have 
right  to  the  promise  of  life  thereby,  is  to  deny  the  truth  of 
God,  and  to  reflect  the  highest  dishonour  upon  his  justice. 
Jesus  Christ  himself  was  justified  by  this  law.     And  it  is  im- 


276 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  OBEDIENCE 


mutably  true,  that  "  he  who  doth  the  things  of  it  shall  live 
therein." 

3.  It  is  granted,  that  man  continued  not  in  the  observance 
of  this  law,  as  it  was  the  rule  of  the  covenant  between  God 
and  him.  It  was  not  the  covenant,  but  the  rule  of  it,  and  its 
being  such  was  superadded  to  its  being  as  a  law.  For  the  cove- 
nant comprised  things  that  were  not  any  part  of  a  result  from 
the  necessary  relation  of  God  and  man.  Wherefore  man  by 
his  sin  as  to  demerit,  may  be  said  to  break  this  covenant,  and 
as  to  any  benefit  to  himself  to  disannul  it.  It  is  also  true,  that 
God  did  never  formally  and  absolutely  renew  or  give  again  this 
law  as  a  covenant  a  second  time.  Nor  was  there  any  need  that 
so  he  should  do,  unless  it  were  declaratively  only,  for  so  it  was 
renewed  at  Sinai.  For  the  whole  of  it  being  an  emanation  of 
eternal  right  and  truth,  it  abides  and  must  abide  in  full  force 
forever.  Wherefore  it  is  only  thus  far  broken  as  a  covenant, 
that  all  mankind,  having  sinned  against  the  commands  of  it, 
and  so  by  guilt  with  the  impotency  to  obedience  which  ensued 
thereon,  defeated  themselves  of  any  interest  in  its  promise,  and 
possibility  of  attaining  any  such  interest, cannot  have  any  bene- 
fit by  it.  But  as  to  its  power  to  oblige  all  mankind  to  obe- 
dience, and  the  unchangeable  truth  of  its  promises  and  threat- 
enings,  it  abides  the  same  as  it  was  from  the  beginning. 

2dly,  Take  away  this  law,  and  there  is  left  no  standard  of 
righteousness  to  mankind,  no  certain  boundaries  of  good  and 
evil,  but  those  pillars  whereon  God  has  fixed  the  earth  are  left 
to  move  and  float  up  and  down  like  the  isle  of  Delos  in  the  sea. 
Some  say,  the  rule  of  good  and  evil  to  men  is  not  this  law  in 
its  original  constitution,  but  the  light  of  natiu'e,  and  the  dic- 
tates of  reason.  If  they  mean  that  light  which  was  primoge- 
nial  and  concreated  with  our  natures,  and  those  dictates  of 
right  and  wrong  which  reason  originally  suggested  and  approv- 
ed, they  only  say  in  other  words,  that  this  law  is  still  the  unal- 
terable rule  of  obedience  to  all  mankind.  But  if  they  intend 
the  remaining  light  of  nature  that  continues  in  every  individual 
in  this  depraved  state  thereof,  and  that  under  such  additional 
depravations  as  traditions,  customs,  prejudices,  and  lusts  of  all 
sorts,  have  affixed  to  the  most,  there  is  nothing  more  irrational, 
and  it  is  that  which  is  charged  with  no  less  inconvenience  than 
that  it  leaves  no  certain  boundaries  of  good  and  evil.  That 
which  is  good  to  one,  will  on  this  ground  be  in  its  own  nature 
evil  to  another,  and  so  on  the  contrary;  and  all  the  idolaters 
that  ever  were  in  the  world  might  on  this  pretence  be  excused. 


THAT    GOD    REQUIRES    OP    US.  277 

3dly,  Conscience  bears  witness  hereto.  There  is  no  good 
nor  evil  required  or  forbidden  by  this  law,  that  upon  the  dis- 
covery of  it,  any  man  in  the  world  can  persuade  or  bribe  his 
conscience  not  to  comply  with  it  in  judgment,  as  to  his  con- 
cernment therein.  It  will  accuse  and  excuse,  condemn  and  free 
him,  according  to  the  sentence  of  this  law,  let  him  do  what  he 
can  to  the  contrary. 

In  brief  it  is  acknowledged,  that  God  by  virtue  of  his  su- 
preme dominion  over  all,  may  in  some  instances  change  the 
nature  and  order  of  things,  so  that  the  precepts  of  the  divine 
law  shall  not  in  them  operate  in  their  ordinary  efficacy.  So 
was  it  in  the  case  of  his  command  to  Abraham  to  slay  his  son, 
and  to  the  Israelites  to  rob  the  Egyptians.  But  on  a  supposi- 
tion of  the  continuance  of  that  order  of  things  which  this  law 
is  the  preservative  of,  such  is  the  intrinsic  nature  of  the  good 
and  evil  commanded  and  forbidden  therein,  that  it  is  not  the 
subject  of  divine  dispensation,  as  even  the  schoolmen  generally 
grant. 

10.  From  what  we  have  discoursed,  two  things  unavoidably 
ensue. 

1.  That  whereas  all  mankind  have  by  sin  fallen  under  the 
penalty  threatened  to  the  transgression  of  this  law;  and  suffer- 
ing of  this  penalty  which  is  eternal  death,  being  inconsistent 
with  acceptance  before  God,  or  the  enjoyment  of  blessedness, 
it  is  utterly  impossible  that  any  one  individual  of  the  posterity 
of  Adam  should  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  accepted  with 
him  or  blessed  by  him,  unless  this  penalty  be  answered,  un- 
dergone, and  suffered  by  them  or  for  them;  the  Sixaiojua  t-ooj 
@sov  herein  is  not  to  be  abolished  but  established. 

2.  That  to  the  same  end  of  acceptance  with  God,  justification 
before  him  and  blessedness  from  him,  the  righteousness  of  this 
eternal  law  must  be  fulfilled  in  us,  in  such  a  way,  that  in  the 
judgment  of  God  which  is  according  to  truth,  we  maybe  es- 
teemed to  have  fulfilled  it,  and  be  dealt  with  accordingly.  For 
upon  a  supposition  of  a  failure  herein,  the  sanction  of  the  law 
is  not  arbitrary,  so  that  the  penalty  may  or  may  not  be  inflict- 
ed, but  necessary  from  the  righteousness  of  God  as  the  supreme 
governor  of  all. 

11.  About  the  first  of  these  our  controversy  is  with  the  So- 
cinians  only,  who  deny  the  satisfaction  of  Clirist,  and  any  ne- 
cessity thereof  Concerning  this  I  have  treated  elsewhere  at 
large,  and  expect  not  to  see  an  answer  to  what  I  have  disputed 
on  that  subject.  As  to  the  latter  of  them,  we  must  inquire  how 

24 


278  THE    NATUSE    OF   THE    OBEDIENCE 

we  may  be  supposed  to  comply  with  the  rule,  and  answer  the 
righteousness  of  this  unalterable  law,  whose  authority  we  can 
no  way  be  exempted  from.  And  that  which  we  plead  is,  that 
the  obedience  and  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us;  his 
obedience  as  the  surety  of  the  new  covenant,  granted  to  us, 
made  ours  by  the  gracious  constitution,  sovereign  appointment 
and  donation  of  God,  is  that  whereon  we  are  judged  and  es- 
teemed to  have  answered  the  righteousness  of  the  law.  "  By 
the  obedience  of  one  many  are  made  righteous."  Rom.  v.  19. 
"  That  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us," 
Rom.  viii.  4.     And  hence  we  argue, 

If  there  be  no  other  way  whereby  the  righteousness  of  the 
law  may  be  fulfilled  in  us,  without  which  we  cannot  be  justi- 
fied, but  must  fall  inevitably  under  the  penalty  threatened  to 
the  transgression  of  it,  but  only  the  righteousness  of  Christ  im- 
puted to  us,  then  is  that  the  sole  righteousness  whereby  we 
are  justified  in  the  sight  of  God;  but  the  former  is  true,  and  so 
therefore  is  the  latter. 

12.  On  the  supposition  of  this  law,  and  its  original  obliga- 
tion to  obedience  with  its  sanction  and  threatenings,  there  can 
be  but  one  of  three  ways  whereby  we  may  come  to  be  justified 
before  God,  who  have  sinned,  and  are  no  way  able  in  ourselves 
to  perform  the  obedience  for  the  future  which  it  requires.  And 
each  of  them  has  a  respect  to  a  sovereign  act  of  God  with  re- 
ference to  this  law.  The  first  is  the  abrogation  of  it,  that  it 
should  no  more  oblige  us  either  to  obedience  or  punishment. 
This  we  have  proved  impossible;  and  they  will  wofully  deceive 
their  own  souls,  who  shall  trust  to  it.  The  second  is  by  trans- 
ferring of  its  obligation  to  the  end  of  justification  on  a  surety  or 
common  undertaker.  This  is  that  which  we  plead  for,  as  the 
substance  of  the  mystery  of  the  gospel,  considering  the  person 
and  grace  of  this  undertaker  or  surety.  And  herein  all  things 
tend  to  the  exaltation  of  the  glory  of  God  in  all  the  holy  pro- 
perties of  his  nature,  with  the  fulfilling  and  establishing  of  the 
law  itself,  Matt.  v.  17.  Rom.  iii.  31;  viii.  4;  x.  3,  4.  The 
third  way  is  by  an  act  of  God  towards  the  law,  and  another 
towards  us,  whereby  the  nature  of  the  righteousness  which  the 
law  requires  is  changed;  which  we  shall  examine  as  the  only 
reserve  against  our  present  argument. 

13.  It  is  said,  therefore,  that  by  our  own  personal  obedience 
we  answer  the  righteousness  of  the  law  so  far  as  it  is  required 
of  us.  But  whereas  no  sober  person  can  imagine  that  we  can, 
or  that  any  one  in  our  lapsed  condition  ever  did  yield  in  our 


THAT    GOD    KEaUIRES    OF    Us,  279 

own  persons  that  perfect  sinless  obedience  to  God  which  is  re- 
quired of  us  in  the  law  of  creation,  two  things  are  supposed, 
that  our  obedience,  such  as  it  is,  may  be  accepted  with  God  as 
if  it  were  sinless  and  perfect.  For  although  some  will  not  allow 
that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us  for  for  what  it 
is,  yet  they  contend  that  our  own  righteousness  is  imputed  to 
us  for  what  it  is  not.  Of  these  things  the  one  respects  the  law. 
tlie  other  our  obedience. 

14,  That  which  respects  the  law  is  not  the  abrogation  of  it. 
For  although  this  would  seem  the  most  expeditious  way  for 
the  reconciliation  of  this  difficulty,  namely,  that  the  law  of 
creation  is  utterly  abrogated  by  the  gospel,  both  as  to  its  obli- 
gation to  obedience  and  punishment;  and  no  law  to  be  con- 
tinued in  force  but  that  which  requires  only  sincere  obedience 
of  us,  whereof  there  is,  as  to  the  manner  of  the  performance 
of  duties,  not  any  absolute  rule  or  measure,  yet  this  is  not  by 
many  pretended.  They  say  not  that  this  law  is  so  abrogated, 
as  that  it  should  not  have  the  power  and  efficacy  of  a  law  to- 
wards us.  Nor  is  it  possible  it  should  be  so;  nor  can  any  pre- 
tence be  given  how  it  should  so  be.  It  is  true,  it  was  broken 
by  man,  is  so  by  us  all,  and  that  with  respect  to  its  principal 
end  of  our  subjection  to  God,  and  dependence  upon  him,  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  it.  But  it  is  foolish  to  think  that  the  fault 
of  those  to  whom  a  righteous  law  is  rightly  given,  should  abro- 
gate or  disannul  the  law  itself.  A  law  that  is  good  and  just 
may  cease  and  expire  as  to  any  power  of  obligation  upon  the 
ceasing  or  expiration  of  the  relation  which  it  respected.  So  the 
Apostle  tells  us,  that  when  the  husband  of  a  woman  is  dead, 
she  is  free  from  the  law  of  her  husband,  Rom.  vii.  2.  But  the 
relation  between  God  and  us,  which  was  constituted  in  our  first 
creation,  can  never  cease.  But  a  law  cannot  be  abrogated 
without  a  new  law  given,  and  made  by  the  same,  or  an  equal 
power  that  made  it,  either  expressly  revoking  it,  or  enjoining 
things  inconsistent  with  it,  and  contradictory  to  its  observation. 
In  the  latter  way  the  law  of  Mosaical  institutions  was  abro- 
gated and  disannulled.  There  was  not  any  positive  law  made 
for  the  taking  of  it  away;  but  the  constitution  and  introduction 
of  a  new  way  of  worship  by  the  gospel  inconsistent  with  it, 
and  contrary  to  it,  deprived  it  of  all  its  obligatory  power  and 
efficacy.  But  neither  of  these  ways  has  God  taken  away  the 
obligation  of  the  original  law  of  obedience,  either  as  to  duties 
or  recompenses  of  reward.  Neither  is  there  any  direct  law 
made  for  its  abrogation;  nor  has  he  given  any  new  law  of  mo- 


280 


THE    NATURE    OF    THE    OBEDIENCE 


ral  obedience  either  inconsistent  with,  or  contrary  to  it.  Yea 
in  the  gospel  it  is  declared  to  be  established  and  fulfilled. 

It  is  true,  as  was  observed  before,  that  this  law  was  made 
the  instrument  of  a  covenant  between  God  and  man;  and  so 
there  is  another  reason  of  it;  for  God  has  actually  introduced 
another  covenant  inconsistent  with  it,  and  contrary  to  it. 
But  yet  neither  does  this  instantly  and  ipso  facto  free  all  men 
from  the  law,  in  the  way  of  a  covenant.  For  to  the  obliga- 
tion of  a  law  there  is  no  more  required,  but  that  the  matter 
of  it  be  just  and  righteous,  that  it  be  given  or  made  by  him 
who  has  just  authority  so  to  give  or  make  it,  and  be  suffi- 
ciently declared  to  them  who  are  to  be  obliged  by  it.  Hence 
the  making  and  promulgation  of  a  new  law,  does  ipso  facto 
abrogate  any  former  law  that  is  contrary  to  it,  and  frees  all 
men  from  obedience  to  it,  who  were  before  obliged  by  it.  But 
in  a  covenant  it  is  not  so.  For  a  covenant  does  not  operate 
by  mere  sovereign  authority;  it  becomes  not  a  covenant  with- 
out the  consent  of  them  with  whom  it  is  made.  Wherefore 
no  benefit  accrues  to  any,  or  freedom  from  the  old  covenant, 
by  the  constitution  of  the  new,  unless  he  has  actually  com- 
plied with  it,  has  chosen  it,  and  is  interested  in  it  thereby. 
The  first  covenant  made  with  Adam,  we  did  in  him  consent 
to,  and  accept  of.  And  therein  notwithstanding  our  sin,  do 
we  and  must  we  abide,  that  is,  under  the  obligation  of  it  to 
duty  and  punishment,  until  by  faith  we  are  made  partakers  of 
the  new.  It  cannot  therefore  be  said,  that  we  are  not  con- 
cerned in  the  fulfilling  of  the  righteousness  of  this  law,  be- 
cause it  is  abrogated. 

15.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  law  has  received  a  new 
interpretation^  whereby  it  is  declared,  that  it  does  not  oblige, 
nor  shall  be  construed  for  the  future  to  oblige  any  to  sinless 
and  perfect  obedience,  but  may  be  complied  with  on  far  easier 
terms.  For  the  law  being  given  to  us  when  we  were  sinless, 
and  on  purpose  to  continue  and  preserve  us  in  that  condition, 
it  is  absurd  to  say  that  it  did  not  oblige  us  to  sinless  obedience; 
and  not  an  interpretation,  but  a  plain  perversion  of  its  sense 
and  meaning.  Nor  is  any  such  thing  once  intimated  in  the 
gospel.  Yea  the  discourses  of  our  Saviour  upon  the  law,.^re 
absolutely  destructive  of  any  such  imagination.  For  wl>*»"se^s 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  had  attempted  by  their  false  glosses 
and  interpretations  to  accommodate  the  law  to  the  inclinations" 
and  lusts  of  men,  (a  course  since  pursued  both  notionally  and 
practically,  as  all  who  design  to  burden  the  consciences  of 


THAT     GOD     REQUIRES     OF    US,  281 

men  with  their  own  commands  endeavour  constantly  to  re- 
compense them,  by  an  indulgence  with  respect  to  the  com- 
mands of  God;)  he  on  the  contrary  rejects  all  such  pretended 
accommodations  and  interpretations,  restoring  the  law  to  its 
pristine  crown,  as  the  Jews,  tradition  is,  that  the  Messiah 
shall  do. 

16.  Nor  can  a  relaxation  of  the  law  be  pretended,  if  there 
be  any  such  thing  in  rule.  For  if  there  be,  it  respects  the  whole 
being  of  the  law,  and  consists  either  in  the  suspension  of  its 
whole  obligation,  at  least  for  a  seastan,  or  the  substitution  of 
another  person  to  answer  its  demands,  who  was  not  in  the 
original  obligation,  in  the  room  of  them  that  were.  For  so 
some  say,  that  the  Lord  Christ  was  made  under  the  law  for 
us  by  an  act  of  relaxation  of  the  original  obligation  of  the  law; 
how  properly,  let  them  see  to  it.  But  herein  no  sense  it  can 
have  place.  ^       ,   « 

17.  The  act  of  God  towards  the  law  iri  this  case  intended, 
is  a  derogation  from  its  obliging  power  as  to  obedience.  For 
whereas  it  originally  obliged  to  perfect  sinless  obedience,  in 
all  duties,  both  as  to  their  substance,  and  the  manner  of  their 
performance,  it  shall  be  allowed  to  oblige  us  still  to  obedience, 
but  not  to  that  which  is  absolutely  the  same,  especially  ijot  as 
to  the  completeness  and  perfection  of  it.  For  if  it  do  so,  either 
it  is  fulfilled  in  the  righteousness  ©f  Christ  for  us,  or  no  man 
living  can  ever  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God.  Wherefore  by 
an  act  of  derogation  from  its  original  power,  it  is  provided, 
that  it  shall  oblige  us  still  to  obedience,  but  not  that  which  is 
absolutely  sinless  and  perfect;  but  although  it  be  performed 
with  less  intention  of  love  to  God,  or  in  a  lower  degree,  than 
it  did  at  first  require,  so  it  be  sincere  and  universal  as  to  all  the 
parts  of  it,  it  is  all  that  the  law  now  requires  of  us.  This  is  alt 
that  it  now  requires,  as  it  is  adapted  to  the  service  of  the  new 
covenant,  and  made  the  rule  of  obedience  according  to  the  law 
of  Christ.  Hereby  is  its  perceptive  part,  so  far  as  v/e  are 
concerned  in  it,  answered  and  complied  v/ith.  Whether  these 
things  are  so  or  no,  we  shall  see  immediately  in  a  few  words. 

18.  Hence  it  follows,  that  the  act  of  God  with  respect  to 
our  obedience,  is  not  an  act  of  judgment  according  to  any  rule 
or  law  of  his  own  ;  but  an  esteeming,  accounting,  accepting 
that  as  perfect  or  in  the  room  of  that  which  is  perfect,  which 
really  and  in  truth  is  not  so. 

19.  It  is  added  that  both  these  depend  on,  and  are  the  pro- 
curements of  the  obedience,  sutfering,  and  merits  of  Christ. 

24* 


li 


282  THE  NATURE  OF  THE  OBEDIENCE 

For  oa  their  account  it  is,  that  our  weak  and  imperfect  obe- 
dience is  accepted  as  if  it  were  perfect,  and  the  power  of  the 
law,  to  require  obedience  absolutely  perfect  is  taken  away. 
And  these  being  the  effects  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  that 
righteousness  may  on  their  account,  and  so  far,  be  said  to  be 
imputed  to  us. 

20.  But  notwithstanding  the  great  endeavours  that  have 
been  used  to  give  a  colour  of  truth  to  these  things,  they  are 
both  of  them  but  fictions  andjmaginationsof  men  that  have  no 
ground  in  the  Scripture^  nor  comply  with  the  experience  of 
them  that  believe. 

For  to  touch  a  little  on  the  latter,  in  the  first  place;  there  is 
no  true  believer  but  has  these  two  things  fixed  in  his  mind 
giud  conscience. 

.(1.)  .Xhatnhere.is  nothing  in  principles,  habits,  qualities,  or 
actions,  wherein  he.  comes 'Short  of  a  perfect  compliance  with 
the  holy  law  of  Gbcl,even  as  it  required  perfect  obedience,  but 
that  it  has  in  it  the  nature  of  sin,  and  that  in  itself  deserving  the 
curse  annexed  originally  to  the  breach  of  that  law.  They  do  not 
therefore  apprehend  that  its  obligation  is  taken  off,  weakened 
or  derogated  from  in  any  thing.  (2)  Tliat  there  is  no  relief  for 
him,  with  respect. to  what  the  law  requires,  or  to  what  it 
threatens,  but  by  the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ  alone,  who  of 
God  is  made  righteousne^  to  him.  Wherefore  they  do  not. 
rest  in,  or  on  the  acceptance  of  their  own  obedience  such  as. 
it  is,  to  answer  the  law,  but  trust  to  Christ  alone  for  their  ac- 
ceptance with  God. 

21.  They  are  both  of  them  doctrinally  untrue;  for  as  to  the 
former;  (1)  It  is  unwritten.  There  is  no  intimation  in  the  Scrip- 
ture of  any  such  dispensation  of  God  with  reference  to  the  origi- 
nal law  of  obedience.  Much  is  spoken  of  our  deliverance  from 
the  curse  of  the  law  by  Christ,  but  of  the  abatement  of  its  pre- 
ceptive power  nothing  at  all.  (2)  It  is  contrary  to  the  Scrip- 
ture. For  it  is  plainly  affirmed  that  the  law  is  not  to  be  abol- 
ished, but  fulfilled;  not  to  be  made  void,  but  to  be  established; 
that  the  righteousness  of  it  must  be  fulfilled  in  us.  (3)  It  is  a 
supposition  both  unreasonable  and  injpossible.  For  (1)  the 
law  was  a  representation  to  us  of  the  holiness  of  God,  and  his 
righteousness  in  the  government  of  his  creatures.  There  can 
be  no  alteration  made  herein,  seeing  with  God  himself  there  is 
no  variableness  nor  shadow  of  changing.  (2)  It  would  leave 
no  standard  of  righteousness,  but  only  a  Lesbian  rule,  which 
turns  and  applies  itself  to  the  light  and  abilities  of  men,  and 


THAT   GOD    REQUIRES    OP    US.  283 

leaves  at  least  as  many  various  measures  of  righteousness  as 
there  are  believers  in  the  world.  (3)  It  concludes  a  variation 
in  the  centre  of  all  religion,  which  is  the  natural  and  moral  rela- 
tion of  men  to  God.  For  so  there  must  be,  if  all  that  was  once 
necessary  thereto,  do  not  still  continue  so  to  be.  (4)  It  is  dishon- 
ourable to  the  mediation  of  Christ.  For  it  makes  the  principal 
end  of  it  to  be,  that  God  should  accept  of  a  righteousness  to  our 
justification,  inexpressibly  beneath  that  which  he  required  in 
the  law  of  our  creation.  And  this  in  a  sense  makes  him  the 
minister  of  sin,  or  that  he  has  procured  an  indulgence  for  it; 
not  by  the  way  of  satisfaction  and  pardon  whereby  he  takes 
away  the  guilt  of  it  from  the  church;  but  by  taking  from  it  its 
nature  and  demerit,  so  that  what  v/as  so  originally  should  not 
continue  so  to  be,  or  at  least  not  to  deserve  the  punishment  it 
was  first  threatened  with.  (5)  It  reflects  on  the  goodness  of 
God  himself.  For  on  this  supposition  that  he  has  reduced  his 
law  into  that  state  and  order,  as  to  be  satisfied  by  an  observa- 
tion of  it  so  weak,  so  imperfect,  accompanied  with  so  many  fail- 
ures and  sins,  as  it  is  with  the  obedience  of  the  best  men  in  this 
world,  (whatever  thoughts  to  the  contrary  the  frenzy  of  pride 
may  suggest  to  the  minds  of  any)  what  reason  can  be  given 
consistent  with  his  goodness  why  lie  should  give  a  law  at  first 
of  perfect  obedience,  which  one  sin  laid  all  mankind  under  the 
penalty  of  to  their  ruin? 

22.  All  these  things  and  sundry  others  of  the  same  kind,  fol- 
low also  on  the  second  supposition  of  an  imaginary  estimation 
of  that  as  perfect,  which  is  imperfect,  as  sinless  which  is  attend- 
ed with  sins  innumerable.  But  the  judgment  of  God  is  accord- 
ing to  truth;  neither  will  he  reckon  that  to  us  for  a  perfect 
righteousness  in  his  sight,  which  is  so  imperfect  as  to  be  like 
tattered  rags,  especially,  having  promised  to  us  robes  of  right- 
eousness and  garments  of  salvation. 

That  which  necessarily  follows  on  these  discourses  is.  That 
there  is  no  other  way  whereby  the  original,  immutable  law  of 
God,  may  be  established,  and  fulfilled  with  respect  to  us,  but 
by  the  imputation  of  the  perfect  obedience  and  righteousness 
of  Christ,  who  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  all  that 
believe.  "   v 


284 


THE    IMPUTATION    OF   THE    OBEDIENCE     OF    CHRIST 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE     IMPUTATION     OF    THE     OBEDIENCE     OF     CHRIST     TO   THE    LAW,    DE- 
CLARED   AND    VINDICATED. 

From  the  foregoing  general  argument,  another  issues  in  par- 
ticular, with  respect  to  the  imputation  of  the  active  obedience 
or  righteousness  of  Christ  to  us,  as  an  essential  part  of  that 
righteousness  whereon  we  are  justified  before  God.  And  it  is 
as  follows.  If  it  were  necessary  that  the  Lord  Christ,  as  our 
surety,  should  undergo  the  penalty  of  the  law  for  us,  or  in  our 
stead,  because  we  have  all  sinned;  then  it  was  necessary  also, 
that  as  our  surety  he  should  yield  obedience  to  the  preceptive 
part  of  the  law  for  us  also:  and  if  the  imputation  of  the  former 
be  needful  for  us  to  our  justification  before  God,  then  is  the  im- 
putation of  the  latter  also  necessary  to  the  same  end  and  pur- 
pose. For  why  was  it  necessary,  or  why  would  God  have  it 
so,  that  the  Lord  Christ,  as  the  surety  of  the  covenant,  should 
undergo  the  curse  and  penalty  of  the  law,  which  we  had  in- 
curred the  guilt  of  by  sin,  that  we  may  be  justified  in  his  sight? 
Was  it  not,  that  the  glory  and  honour  of  his  righteousness,  as 
the  author  of  the  law,  and  the  supreme  governor  of  all  man- 
kind, thereby  might  not  be  violated  in'  the  absolute  impunity  of 
the  infringers  of  it:  and  if  it  were  requisite  to  the  glory  of  God, 
that  the  penalty  of  the  law  should  be  undergone  for  us,  or 
suffered  by  our  surety  in  our  stead,  because  we  had  sinned; 
wherefore  is  it  not  as  requisite  to  the  glory  of  God,  that  the 
preceptive  part  of  the  law  be  complied  with  for  us,  in  as  much 
as  obedience  thereto-is  required  of  us?  And  as  we  are  no  more 
able  of  ourselves  to  fulfil  the  law,  in  a  way  of  obedience,  than 
to  undergo  the  penalty  of  it,  so  that  we  may  be  justified  there- 
by: so  no  reason  can  be  given,  why  God  is  not  as  much  con- 
cerned in  honour  and  glory,  that  the  preceptive  power  and  part 
of  the  law  be  complied  with,  by  perfect  obedience,  as  that  the 
sanction  of  it  be  established  by  undergoing  the  penalty  of  it. ' 
Upon  the  same  grounds,  therefore,  that  the  Lord  Christ's  suf- 
fering the  penalty  of  the  law  for  us  was  necessary  that  we 
might  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God-,  and  that  the  satisfaction 
he  made  thereby  be  imputed  to  us,  as  if  we  ourselves  hadYnade 
satisfaction  to  God,  as  Eellarmine  speaks  and  grants;  on  the 
same  it  was  equally  necessary,  that  is,  as  to  the  glory  and 


TO   THE    LAW,    DECLARED    AND    VINDICATED.  285 

honour  of  the  legislator  and  supreme  governor  of  all  by  the  law, 
that  he  should  fulfil  the  preceptive  part  of  it,  in  his  perfect  obe- 
dience thereto,  which  also  is  to  be  imputed  to  us  for  our  justi- 
fication. 

Concerning  the  first  of  these,  namely,  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ,  and  the  imputation  of  it  to  us,  our  principal  difference 
is  with  the  Sociniaiis.  And  I  have  elsewhere  written  so  much 
in  the  vindication  of  the  truth  therein,  that  I  shall  not  here 
again  resume  the  same  argument:  it  is  here  therefore  taken  for 
granted,  although  I  know  that  there  are  some  different  appre- 
hensions about  the  notion  of  Christ's  suffering  in  our  stead,  and 
of  the  imputation  of  those  sufferings  to  us.  But  I  shall  here 
take  no  notice  of  them,  seeing  I  press  this  argument  no  further, 
but  only  so  far,  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  to  the  law,  and 
the  imputation  thereof  to  us,  is  no  less  necessary  to  our  justifi- 
cation before  God,  than  his  suffering  of  the  penalty  of  the  law, 
and  the  imputation  thereof  to  us,  tp  the  same  end.  The  na- 
ture of  this  imputation,  and  what  it  is  formally  that  is  imputed, 
we  have  considered  elsewhere. 

That  the  obedience  of  Christ  the  mediator  is  thus  imputed 
to  us,  shall  be  afterwards  proved  in  particular  by  testimonies 
of  the  Scripture.  Here  I  intend  only  the  vindication  of  the 
argument  as  before  laid  down,  which  will  take  us  up  a  little 
more  time  than  ordinary.  For  there  is  nothing  in  the  whole 
doctrine  of  justification,  which  meets  with  a  more  fierce  and 
various  opposition:  but  the  truth  is  great  and  will  prevail. 

The  things  that  are  usually  objected  and  vehemently  urged 
against  the  imputation  of  the  obedience  of  Christ  for  our  justi- 
fication, may  be  reduced  to  three  heads.  (1.)  That  it  is  im- 
possible. (2.)  That  it  is  useless.  (3.)  That  it  is  pernicious  to 
believe  it.  And  if  the  arguments  used  for  the  enforcement  of 
those  objections,  be  as  cogent  as  the  charge  itself  is  fierce  and 
severe,  they  will  unavoidably  overthrow  the  persuasions  of  it 
in  the  minds  of  all  sober  persons.  But  there  is  ofttimes  a  wide 
difference  between  what  is  said,  and  what  is  proved,  as  will 
appear  in  the  present  case. 

1.  It  is  pleaded  impossible  on  this  single  ground;  namely, 
"  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  to  the  law  was  due  from  him  on 
his  own  account,  and  performed  by  him  for  himself,  as  a  man 
made  under  the  law.  Now  what  was  necessary  to  himself, 
and  done  for  himself,  cannot  be  said  to  be  done  for  us,  so  as  to 
be  imputed  to  us." 

2.  It  is  pretended  to  be  useless  from  hence,  because  "  all  our 


286  THE    IMPUTATION    OF  THE   OBEDIENCE    OF    CHRIST 

sins  of  omission  and  commission  being  pardoned  in  our  justifi- 
cation on  the  account  of  the  death  and  satisfaction  of  Christ, 
we  are  thereby  made  completely  righteous;  so  that  there  is  not 
the  least  necessity  for,  or  use  of  the  imputation  of  the  obedi- 
ence of  Christ  to  us." 

3.  "Peruicions  also  they  say  it  is,  as  that  which  takes  away 
the  necessity  of  our  own  personal  obedience,  introducing  anti- 
iiomianism,  libertinism,  and  all  manner  of  evils," 

For  this  last  part  of  the  charge,  I  refer  it  to  its  proper  place. 
For  although  it  be  urged  by  some  against  this  part  of  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  in  a  peculiar  matmer,  yet  it  is  managed 
by  others,  against  the  whole  of  it.  And  although  we  should 
grant,  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  to  the  law,  is  not  imputed 
to  us  for  onr  justification,  yet  shall  we  not  be  freed  from  dis- 
turbance by  this  false  accusation;  unless  we  will  renounce  the 
whole  of  the  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ  also.  And  we 
intend  not  to  purchase  our  peace  with  the  whole  world  at  so 
dear  a  rate.  Wherefore  I  shall  in  its  proper  place  give  this 
part  of  the  charge  its  due  consideration,  as  it  reflects  on  the 
whole  doctrine  of  justification,  and  all  the  causes  thereof,  which 
we  believe  and  profess. 

The  first  part  of  this  charge,  concerning  the  impossibility  of 
the  imputation  of  the  obedience  of  Christ  to  us,  is  insisted  on 
by  Socinus.  And  there  has  been  nothing  since  pleaded  to  the 
same  purpose,  but  what  has  been  derived  from  him,  or  where- 
in, at  least,  he  has  not  anticipated  the  inventions  of  other  men, 
and  gone  before  them.  And  he  makes  this  consideration  the 
principal  engine  wherewith  he  endeavours  the  overthrow  of 
the  whole  doctrine  of  the  merit  of  Christ.  For  he  supposes, 
that  if  all  he  did  in  a  way  of  obedience,  was  due  from  himself 
on  his  own  account,  and  was  only  the  duty  which  he  owed  to 
God  for  himself  in  his  station  and  circumstances,  as  a  man  in 
this  world,  it  cannot  be  meritorious  for  us,  nor  any  way  im- 
puted to  us.  And  in  like  manner  to  weaken  the  doctrine  of 
his  satisfaction,  and  the  imputation  thereof  to  us,  he  contends 
that  Christ  offered  as  a  priest  for  himself,  in  that  kind  of  offer- 
ing which  he  made  on  the  cross.  And  his  real  opinion  was, 
that  whatever  was  of  offering  or  sacrifice  in  the  death  of 
Christ,  it  was  for  himself;  that  is,  it  was  an  act  of  obedience 
to  God  which  pleased  him,  as  the  savour  of  a  sweet  smelling 
sacrifice.  His  offering  for  us,  is  only  the  presentation  of  him- 
self in  the  presence  of  God  in  heaven;  now  he  has  no  more  to 
do  for  himself  in  a  way  of  duty.     And  the  truth  is,  if  the  obe- 


TO   THE   LAW,  DECLARED    AND    VINDICATED.  287 

dience  of  Christ  had  respect  to  himself  only;  that  is,  if  he 
yielded  it  to  God,  on  the  necessity  of  his  condition,  and  did  not 
do  it  for  us,  I  see  no  foundation  left  to  assert  his  merit  upon, 
no  more  than  I  do  for  the  imputation  of  it  to  them  that  be- 
lieve. ^  •%  7  ■ 

That  which  we  j)lead  is,  that  the  Lord  Christ  fulfilled  the'; 
whole  law  for  us;  he  did  not  only  undergo  the  penalty  of  it 
due  to  our  sins,  but  also  yielded  that  perfect  obedience  which  it 
required.  And  herein  I  shall  not  involve  myself  in  the  debate 
of  the  distinction  between  the  active  and  passive  obedience  of 
Christ.  For  he  exercised  the  highest  active  obedience  in  his 
suffering,  when  he  offered  himself  to  God  through  the  eternal 
Spirit.  And  all  his  obedience,  considering  his  person,  was 
mixed  with  suffering,  as  a  part  of  his.exjaauition  and  humilia- 
tion; whence  it  is  said,  that  "though  he  was  a  Son,  yet  learn- 
ed he  obedience  by  the  things  that  he  suffered."  And  al- 
though doing  and  suffering  are  in  various  categories  of  things, 
yet  Scripture  testimonies  are  not  to  be  regulated  by  philoso- 
phical artifices  and  terms.  And  it  must  needs  be  said,  that  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  as  they  were  purely  penal,  are  imperfectly 
called  his  passive  righteousness.  For  all  righteousness  is  either 
in  habit,  or  in  action,  whereof  suffering  is  neither;  nor  is  any 
man  righteous,  or  so  esteemed  from  what  he  suffers.  Neither 
do  sufferings  give  satisfaction  to  the  commands  of  the  law, 
which  require  only  obedience.  And  hence  it  will  unavoidably 
follow,  that  we  have  need  of  more  than  the  mere  sufferings  of 
Christ,  whereby  we  may  be  justified  before  God,  if  so  be  that 
any  righteousness  be  required  thereto.  But  the  whole  of  what 
I  intend  is,  that  Christ's  fulfilling  of  the  law  in  obedience  to  its 
commands,  is  no  less  imputed  to  us  for  our  justification,  than 
his  undergoing  the  penalty  of  it  is. 

I  cannot  but  judge  it  sounds  ill  in  the  ears  of  all  Christians, 
that  the  obedience  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  our  mediator 
and  surety  to  the  whole  law  of  God,  was  for  himself  alone,  and 
not  for  us;  or  that  what  he  did  therein,  was  not  that  he  might 
be  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  them  that  do  believe, 
nor  a  means  of  the  fulfilling  of  the  righteousness  of  the  law  in 
us;  especially  considering,  that  the  faith  of  the  Church  is,  that 
he  was  given  to  us,  born  to  us;  that  for  us  men,  and  lor  our 
salvation  he  came  down  from  heaven,  and  did,  and  suffered 
what  was  required  of  him.  But  whereas  some  who  deny  the 
imputation  of  the  obedience  of  Christ  to  us,  for  our  justification, 
do  insist  principally  on  the  second  thing  mentioned,  namely, 


288  THE    IMPUTATION   OF  THE    OBEDIENCE   OP   CHRIST 

the  unnsefnlness  of  it,  I  shall,  under  this  first  part  of  the  charge, 
consider  only  the  argnings  of  Socinns,  which  is  the  whole  of 
what  Sonne  at  present  endeavour  to  perplex  the  truth  with.* 

I  have  transcribed  his  words,  that  it  may  appear  with  whose 
weapons  some  young  disputers,  among  ourselves,  contend 
against  the  truth.  The  substance  of  his  plea  is,  '•  that  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  was  for  himself,  or  on  his  own  account,  obliged  to 
all  that  obedience  which  he  performed."  And  this  he  endea- 
vours to  prove  with  this  reason,  "  because  if  it  were  otherwise, 
then  he  might,  if  he  would,  have  neglected  the  whole  law  of 
God,  and  have  broken  it  at  his  pleasure."  For  he  forgot  to 
consider,  that  if  he  were  not  obliged  to  it  upon  his  own  account, 
but  was  so  on  ours,  whose  cause  he  had  undertaken,  the  obli- 
gation on  him  to  most  perfect  obedience,  was  equal  to  what  it 
would  have  been,  had  he  been  originally  obliged  on  his  own 
account.  However  hence  he  infers,  that  what  he  did,  could 
not  be  for  us,  "  because  it  was  so  for  himself,  no  more  than 
what  any  other  man  is  bound  to  do  in  a  way  of  duty  for  him- 
self, can  be  esteemed  to  have  been  done  also  for  another,"  For 
he  will  allow  of  none  of  those  considerations  of  the  person  of 
Christ  which  makes  what  he  did  and  suffered,  of  another  na- 
ture and  efficacy,  than  what  can  be  done  or  suffered  by  any 
other  man.  All  that  he  adds,  in  the  process  of  his  discourse, 
is,  "  that  whatever  Christ  did,  that  was  not  required  by  the  law 
in  general,  was  upon  the  especial  command  of  God,  and  so 
done  for  himself;  whence  it  cannot  be  imputed  to  us."  And 
hereby  he  excludes  the  Church  from  any  benefit  by  the  media- 
tion of  Christ,  but  only  what  consists  in  his  doctrine,  example, 
and  the  exercise  of  his  power  in  heaven  for  our  good,  which 
was  the  thing  that  he  aimed  at.  But  we  siiall  consider  those 
also  which  make  use  of  his  arguments,  though  not  as  yet  open- 
ly to  all  his  ends. 

To  clear  the  truth  herein,  the  things  ensuing  must  be  ob- 
served. 

*  Jam  vero  manifestum  est,  Christum  quia  homo  natus  fuerat,  et  quidem,  ut 
inquit  Paulus,  factus  sub  lege,  legi  divince  inquam,qu!B  seterna  et  imnmtabilis  est, 
non  minus  quam  creteri  homines  obnoxium  fuisse.  AHoqui  potuisset  C'liristus 
EBternam  Dei  legem  negligere,  sive  etiam  univcrsam  si  voluisset  infringere,  quod 
impium  est  ve!  cogitare.  Imnio  ut  supra  alicubi  explicatum  fuit,  nisi  ipse  Chris- 
tus  legi  divinae  servanda;  obno.xius  fuisset,  ut  ex  Pauli  verbis  colligitur,  non  potu- 
isset iis,  qui  ei  legi  servandre  obnoxii  sunt,  opem  ferre  et  eos  ad  imraortaiitatis  fir- 
mam  spem  traducere.  Non  dificrebat  igitur  hac  quidem  ex  parte  Christus,  quando 
homo  natus  erat,  a  caeteris  hominibus.  Quocirea  nee  etiam  pro  aiiis,  magis  quam 
quilibet  alius  homo,  legem  divinam  conscrvando,  satisfacere  potuit,  quijjpe  qui  ipse 
earn  servare  omnino  debuit. — De  Servat.  par.  iii.  cap.  5. 


TO    THE    LAW,    DECLARED    AND    VINDICATED.  ^289 

1,  The  obedience  we  treat  of,  was  the  obedience  of  Christ 
the  Mediator.  But  the  obedience  of  Christ  as  the  Mediator  of 
the  covenant,  was  the  obedience  of  his  person:  for  "God  re- 
deemed his  church  with  his  own  blood,"  Acts  xx.  28.  It  was 
performed  in  the  human  nature,  but  the  person  of  Christ  was 
he  that  performed  it.  As  in  the  person  of  a  man,  some  of  his 
acts,  as  to  the  immediate  principle  of  operation,  are  acts  of  the 
body,  and  some  are  acts  of  the  soul,  yet  in  their  performance 
and  accomplishment,  are  they  the  acts  of  the  person;  so  the 
acts  of  Christ  in  his  mediation,  as  to  their  ivipyrifxara  or  imme- 
diate operation,  were  the  actmgs  of  his  distinct  natures;  some 
of  the  divine,  and  some  of  the  human  immediately.  But  as  to 
their  axotsxsafxata,  and  the  perfecting  efficacy  of  them,  they  were 
the  acts  of  his  whole  person:  his  acts  who  was  that  person, 
and  whose  power  of  operation  was  a  property  of  his  person. 
Wherefore  the  obedience  of  Christ  which  we  plead  to  have 
been  for  us,  was  the  obedience  of  the  Son  of  God;  but  ihe  Son 
of  God  was  never  absolutely  made  vno  vojxov  "  under  the  law," 
nor  could  be  formally  obliged  thereby.  He  was  indeed,  as  the 
Apostle  witnesses,  made  so  in  his  human  nature,  wherein  he 
performed  this  obedience,  "  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the 
law,"  Gal.  iv.  4.  He  was  so  far  "made  under  the  law,"  as  he 
was  made  of  a  woman.  For  in  his  person  he  abode  "  Lord  of 
the  Sabbath,"  Mark  ii.  28,  and  therefore  of  the  whole  law. 
But  the  obedience  itself,  was  the  obedience  of  that  person,  who 
never  was,  nor  ever  could  absolutely  be,  made  under  the  law, 
in  his  whole  person.  For  the  divine  nature  cannot  be  subjected 
to  an  outward  work  of  its  own,  such  as  the  law  is;  nor  can  it 
have  an  authoritative  commanding  power  over  it,  as  it  must 
have,  if  it  were  made  "under  the  law."  Thus  the  Apostle  ar- 
gues, that  Levi  paid  tithes  in  Abraham,  because  he  was  then 
in  his  loins,  when  Abraham  himself  paid  tithes  to  Melchisedec, 
Heb.  vii.  And  thence  he  proves,  that  he  was  inferior  to  the  Lord 
Christ,  of  whom  Melchisedec  was  a  type.  But  may  it  not 
thereon  be  replied,  that  then  no  less  the  Lord  Christ  was  in  the 
loins  of  Abraham  than  Levi?  "for  verily,"  as  the  same  Apostle 
speaks,  "he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham."  It  is  true, 
therefore,  that  he  was  so  in  respect  of  his  human  nature;  but 
as  he  was  typified  and  represented  by  Melchisedec  in  his  whole 
person,  "wiihout  father,  without  mother,  without  genealogy, 
without  beginning  of  days  or  end  of  life:"  so  he  was  not  abso- 
lutely in  Abraham's  loins,  and  was  exempted  from  being  tithed 
in  him.    Wherefore  the  obedience  whereof  we  treat,  being  not 

25 


;;|iV 


290  THE    IMPUTATION    OF    THE    OBEDIENCE   OF   CHRIST 

the  obedience  of  the  human  nature  abstractedly,  however  per- 
formed in  and  by  the  human  nature,  but  the  obedience  of  the 
person  of  the  Son  of  God,  however  the  human  nature  was  sub- 
ject to  the  law,  (in  what  sense,  and  to  what  ends  shall  be  de- 
clared afterwards)  it  was  not  for  himself,  nor  could  be  for  him- 
self, because  his  whole  person  was  not  obliged  thereto.  It  is 
therefore  a  vain  thing  to  compare  the  obedience  of  Christ,  with 
that  of  any  other  man,  whose  whole  person  is  under  the  law. 
For  although  that  may  not  be  for  himself  and  others,  (which 
yet  we  shall  show  that  in  some  cases  it  may,)  yet  this  may, 
yea  must  be  for  others,  and  not  for  himself.  This  then  we 
must  strictly  hold  to.  If  the  obedience  that  Christ  yielded  to 
the  law  were  for  himself,  whereas  it  was  the  act  of  his  person, 
his  whole  person,  and  the  divine  nature  therein,  were  made 
under  the  law,  which  cannot  be.  For  although  it  is  acknow- 
ledged, that  in  the  ordination  of  God,  his  exinanition  was  to 
precede  his  glorious  majestic  exaltation,  as  the  Scripture  wit- 
nesses, Phil.  ii.  9.  Luke  xxiv.  26.  Rom.  xiv.  9;  yet  absolutely 
his  glory  was  an  immediate  consequence  of  the  hypostatical 
union,  Heb.  i.  6.  Matth.  ii.  11. 

Socinus,  I  confess,  evades  the  force  of  this  argument,  by 
denying  the  divine  person  of  Christ.  But  in  this  disputation 
I  take  that  for  granted,  as  having  proved  it  elsewhere,  beyond 
what  any  of  his  followers  are  able  to  contradict.  And  if  we 
may  not  build  on  truths  by  him  denied,  we  shall  scarce  have 
any  one  principle  of  evangelical  truih  left  us  to  prove  any 
thing  from.  However,  I  aim  at  those  only  at  present,  who 
concur  with  him  in  the  matter  under  debate,  but  renounce 
his  opinion  concerning  the  person  of  Christ. 

2.  As  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  owed  not  in  his  own  person 
this  obedience  for  himself,  by  virtue  of  any  authority  or  power 
that  the  law  had  over  him,  so  he  designed  and  intended  it  not 
for  himself,  but  for  us.  This  added  to  the  former  considera- 
tion, gives  full  evidence  to  the  truth  pleaded  for;  for  if  he  was 
not  obliged  to  it  for  himself,  his  person  that  yielded  it,  not 
being  under  the  law;  and  if  he  intended  it  not  for  himself, 
then  it  must  be  for  us,  or  be  useless:  it  was  in  our  human  nature, 
that  he  performed  all  this  obedience.  Now  the  susception  of 
our  nature,  was  a  voluntary  act  of  his  own,  with  reference  to 
some  end  and  purpose;  and  that  which  was  the  end  of  the 
assumption  of  our  nature,  was  in  like  manner  the  end  of  all 
that  he  did  therein.  Now  it  was  for  us,  and  not  for  himself, 
that  he  assumed  our  nature;  nor  was  any  thing  added  to  him 


TO   THE    LAW,     DECLARED     AND     VINDICATED.  291 

thereby:  wherefore  in  the  issue  of  his  work,  he  proposes  this 
only  to  himself,  that  he  may  ''  be  glorified  with  that  glory 
which  he  had  with  the  Father,  before  the  world  was,"  by  the 
removal  of  that  veil  which  was  put  upon  it  in  his  exinanition. 
But  that  it  was  for  us  tliat  he  assumed  our  nature,  is  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Christian  religion;  as  it  is  asserted  by  the  Apostle, 
Heb.  ii.  14.  Phil.  ii.  5—8. 

Some  of  the  ancient  schoolmen  disputed,  that  the  Son  of 
God  should  have  been  incarnate,  although  man  had  not  sinned 
and  fallen.  The  same  opinion  was  fiercely  pursued  by  Osian- 
der  as  I  have  elsewhere  declared;  but  none  of  them  once 
imagined,  that  he  should  have  been  so  made  man,  as  to  be 
made  under  the  law,  and  be  obliged  thereby  to  that  obedience 
which  now  he  has  performed:  but  they  judged  that  imme- 
diately he  was  to  have  been  a  glorious  head  to  the  whole  crea- 
tion. For  it  is  a  common  notion  and  presumption  of  all  Chris- 
tians, but  only  such  as  will  sacrifice  such  notions  to  their  own 
private  conceptions,  that  the  obedience  which  Christ  yielded 
to  the  law  on  earth,  in  the  state  and  condition  wherein  he 
yielded  it,  was  not  for  himself,  but  for  the  church,  which  was 
obliged  to  perfect  obedience,  but  was  not  able  to  accomplish 
it.  That  this  was  his  sole  end  and  design  in  it,  is  a  funda- 
mental article,  if  I  mistake  not,  of  the  creed  of  most  Christians 
in  the  world;  and  to  deny  it  consequently  overthrows  all  the 
grace  and  love  both  of  the  Father  and  Son,  in  his  mediation. 

It  is  said,  "  that  this  obedience  was  necessary  as  a  qualifi- 
cation of  his  person,  that  he  might  be  meet  to  be  a  mediator 
for  us,  and  therefore  was  for  himself;  it  belongs  to  the  neces- 
sary constitution  of  his  person,  with  respect  to  his  mediatory 
work:"  but  this  I  positively  deny.  The  Lord  Christ  was  every 
way  meet  for  the  whole  work  of  mediation,  by  the  ineffable 
union  of  the  human  nature  with  the  divine,  which  exalted  it 
in  dignity,  honour  and  worth,  above  any  thing,  or  all  things 
that  ensued  thereon.  For  hereby  he  became  in  his  whole  per- 
son the  object  of  all  divine  worship  and  honour;  "for  when 
he  brings  the  first  begotten  into  the  world,  he  saiih,  and  let  all 
the  angels  of  God  worship  him."  Again  that  which  is  an 
eft'ect  of  the  person  of  the  mediator  as  constituted  such,  is  not  a 
qualification  necessary  to  its  constitution;  that  is,  what  he  did 
as  mediator,  did  not  concur  to  the  making  of  him  meet  so  to  be. 
But  of  this  nature  was  all  the  obedience  which  he  yielded  to 
the  law,  for  as  such,  "  it  became  him  to  fulfil  all  righteous- 
ness." 


i 


292  THE    IMPUTATION     OF    THE    OBEDIENCE   OF    CHRIST 

Whereas  therefore  he  was  neither  made  man,  nor  of  the  pos- 
terity of  Abraham  for  himself,  but  for  the  church,  namely,  to  be- 
come thereby  the  surety  of  the  covenant,  and  representative  of 
the  whole,  his  obedience  as  a  man  to  the  law  in  general,  and  as 
a  son  of  Abraham  to  the  law  of  Moses,  was  for  us,  and  not  for 
himself;  so  designed,  so  performed,  and  without  a  respect  to 
the  church,  was  of  no  use  to  himself.  He  was  born  to  us,  and 
given  to  us,  lived  for  us,  and  died  for  us,  obeyed  for  us,  and 
suffered  for  us;  that  by  the  obedience  of  one,  many  might  be 
made  righteous.  This  was  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ; 
and  this  is  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  church.  And  what  he  did 
for  us,  is  imputed  to  us.  This  is  included  in  the  very  notion  of 
his  doing  it  for  us,  which  cannot  be  spoken  in  any  sense,  un- 
less that  which  he  so  did,  be  imputed  to  us.  And  I  think  men 
ought  to  be  wary,  that  they  do  not  by  distinctions  and  studied 
evasions,  for  the  defence  of  their  own  private  opinions,  shake 
the  foundations  of  Christianity.  And  I  am  sure  it  will  be  easier 
for  them,  as  it  is  in  the  proverb,  "To  wrest  the  club  out  of  the 
hand  of  Hercules,"  than  to  dispossess  the  minds  of  true  believ- 
ers of  this  persuasion;  that  what  the  Lord  Christ  did  in  obe- 
dience to  God  according  to  the  law,  he  designed  in  his  love  and 
grace  to  do  it  for  them.  He  needed  no  obedience  for  himself, 
he  came  not  into  a  capacity  of  yielding  obedience  for  himself, 
but  for  us;  and  therefore  for  us  it  was,  that  he  fulfilled  the  law 
in  obedience  to  God  according  to  the  terms  of  it.  The  obliga- 
tion that  was  on  him  to  obedience,  was  originally  no  less  for 
us,  no  less  needful  to  us,  no  more  for  himself,  no  more  necessa- 
ry to  him,  than  the  obligation  that  was  on  him  as  the  surety  of 
the  covenant,  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law,  was  either  the 
one,  or  the  other. 

3.  Setting  aside  the  consideration  of  the  grace  and  love  of 
Christ,  and  the  compact  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  as  to 
his  undertaking  for  us,  which  undeniably  proves  all  that  he  did 
in  the  pursuit  of  them  to  be  done  for  us,  and  not  for  himself; 
the  human  nature  of  Christ,  by  virtue  of  its  union  with  the 
person  of  the  Son  of  God,  had  a  right  to,  and  miglit  have  imme- 
diately been  admitted  into,  the  highest  glory  whereof  it  was 
capable,  without  any  antecedent  obedience  to  the  law.  And  this 
is  apparent  from  hence,  in  that  from  tlie  first  instant  of  that 
union,  the  whole  person  of  Christ  with  our  nature  existing 
tlierein,  was  the  object  of  all  divine  worship  from  angels  and 
men,  wherein  consists  the  highest  exaltation  of  that  nature. 

It  is  true,  there  was  a  peculiar  glory  that  he  was  actually  to 


TO    THE    LAW,    DECLARED    AND    VINDICATED.  293 

be  made  partaker  of,  with  respect  to  his  antecedent  obedience 
and  suffering,  Phil.  ii.  8,  9.  The  actual  possession  of  this  glory- 
was,  in  the  ordination  of  God,  to  be  consequent  to  his  obeying 
and  suffering,  not  for  himself,  but  for  us.  But  as  to  the  right 
and  capacity  of  the  human  nature  in  itself,  all  the  glory  whereof 
it  was  capable,  was  due  to  it  from  the  instant  of  its  union.  For 
it  was  therein  exalted  above  the  condition  that  any  creature  is 
capable  of  by  mere  creation.  And  it  is  but  a  Socinian  fiction,  that 
the  first  foundation  of  the  divine  glory  of  Christ  was  laid  in  his 
obedience,  which  was  only  the  way  of  his  actual  possession  of 
that  part  of  his  glory,  which  consists  in  his  mediatory  power 
and  authority  over  all.  The  real  foundation  of  the  whole,  was 
laid  in  the  union  of  his  person ;  whence  he  prays  that  the  Father 
would  glorify  him,  (as  to  manifestation)  with  that  glory  which 
he  had  with  him  before  the  world  was. 

I  will  grant,  that  the  Lord  Christ  was  viator  whilst  he  was 
in  this  world,  and  not  dihso\\\{e\Y  possessor;  yet  I  say  withal  he 
was  so,  not  that  any  such  condition  was  necessary  to  him  for 
himself;  but  he  took  it  upon  him  by  especial  dispensation  for 
us.  And  therefore  the  obedience  he  performed  in  that  condi- 
tion, was  for  us,  and  not  for  himself. 

4.  It  is  granted  therefore,  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
was  made  vko  vo^ov,  as  the  Apostle  affirms,  that  which  was 
made  of  a  woman,  was  made  under  the  law.  Hereby  obe- 
dience became  necessary  to  him,  as  he  was  and  whilst  he  was 
viator.  But  this  being  by  especial  dispensation,  intimated  in  the 
expression  of  it,  he  made  was  under  tlie  law,  namely,  as  he  was 
made  of  a  woman,  by  especial  dispensation  and  condescension 
expressed,  Phil.  ii.  6 — 8;  the  obedience  he  yielded  thereon, 
was  for  us,  and  not  for  himself  And  this  is  evident  from  hence, 
for  he  was  so  made  under  the  law,  as  that  not  only  he  owed 
obedience  to  the  precepts  of  it,  but  he  was  made  obnoxious  to 
its  curse.  But  I  suppose  it  will  not  be  said,  that  he  was  so  for 
himself,  and  therefore  not  for  us.  We  owed  obedience  to  the 
law,  and  were  obnoxious  to  the  curse  of  it,  or  vnobixot,  ti^  ©tw. 
Obedience  was  required  of  us,  and  was  as  necessary  to  us,  if 
we  would  enter  into  life,  as  the  answering  of  the  curse  for  us 
was,  if  we  would  escape  death  eternal.  Christ  as  our  surety, 
is  made  under  the  law  for  us,  whereby  he  becomes  liable  and 
obliged  to  the  obedience  which  the  'law  required,  and  to  the 
penalty  that  it  threatened.  Who  shall  now  dare  to  say,  that 
he  underwent  the  penalty  of  the  law  for  us  indeed,  but  he 
yielded  obedience  to  it  for  himself  only  ?     The  whole  harmony 

25* 


294  THE    IMPUTATION     OF    THE    OBEDIE^XE    OF    CHRIST 

of  the  work  of  his  mediation,  would  be  disordered  by  such  a 
supposition. 

Judah,  the  son  of  Jacob,  undertook  to  be  a  bondman  instead 
of  Benjamin  his  brother,  that  he  might  go  free,  Gen.  xhv.  33. 
There  is  no  doubt  but  Joseph  might  have  accepted  of  the  stipu- 
lation. Had  he  done  so,  the  service  and  bondage  he  undertook, 
had  been  necessary  to  Judah,  and  righteous  for  him  to  bear; 
howbeit  he  had  undergone  it,  and  performed  his  duty  in  it,  not 
for  himself,  but  for  his  brother  Benjamin ;  and  to  Benjamin  it 
would  have  been  imputed  in  his  liberty.  So  when  the  Apostle 
Paul  wrote  those  words  to  Philemon  concerning  Onesimus, 
verse  IS,  "  If  he  hath  wronged  ihee,"  dealt  unrighteously  or 
injuriously  wUh  thee,  "  or  oweth  thee  aught,"  Vv  herein  thou 
hast  suflered  loss  by  him,  "put  it  on  my  account,"  or  impute 
it  all  to  me;  "I  will  repay  it,"  or  answer  for  it  all.  He  sup- 
poses that  Philemon  might  have  a  double  action  against  Onesi- 
mus;  the  one  injuriariim,  and  the  other  damni  or  debiti,  of 
wrong  and  injury,  and  of  loss  or  debt;  which  are  distinct  ac- 
tions in  the  law:  if  he  has  wronged  thee,  or  oweth  thee  aught. 
Hereon  he  proposes  himself,  and  obliges  himself  by  his  express 
obligation.  "  I  Paul  have  written  it  with  my  own  hand,"  that 
he  would  answer  for  both,  and  pay  back  a  valuable  considera- 
tion if  required.  Hereby  was  he  obliged  in  his  own  person  to 
make  satisfaction  to  Philemon;  but  yet  he  was  to  do  it  for 
Onesimus,  and  not  for  himself.  Whatever  obedience  therefore 
was  due  from  the  Lord  Christ,  as  to  his  human  nature  whilst 
in  the  "  form  of  a  servant,"  either  as  a  man,  or  as  an  Israelite, 
seeing  he  was  so  not  necessarily  by  the  necessity  of  nature  for 
himself,  but  by  voluntary  condescension  and  stipulation  for  us, 
for  us  it  was,  and  not  for  himself. 

5.  The  Lord  Christ  in  his  obedience  was  not  a  private,  but 
a  public  person.  He  obeyed  as  he  was  the  surety  of  the  cove- 
nant, as  the  mediator  between  God  and  man.  This  I  suppose 
will  not  be  denied.  He  can  by  no  imagination  be  considered 
out  of  that  capacity.  But  what  a  public  person  does  as  a  pub- 
lic person,  that  is  as  a  representative  of  others,  and  an  under- 
taker for  them,  whatever  may  be  his  own  concernment  therein, 
he  does  it  not  for  himself,  but  for  others.  And  if  others  were 
not  concerned  therein,  if  it  were  not  for  them,  what  he  does 
would  be  of  no  use  or  signification.  Yea,  it  implies  a  contra- 
diction that  any  one  should  do  any  thing  as  a  public  person, 
and  do  it  for  himself  only.  He  who  is  a  public  person,  may 
do  that  wherein  he  alone  is  concerned,  but  he  cannot  do  so  as 


TO    THE    LAW,    DECLARED    AND     VINDICATED.  295 

he  is  a  public  person.  Wherefore  as  Socinns,  and  those  that 
follow  him  would  have  Christ  to  have  offered  for  himself, 
which  is  to  make  him  a  mediator  for  himself,  his  offering  being 
a  mediatory  act,  which  is  both  foolish  and  impious;  so  to 
affirm  his  mediatory  obedience,  his  obedience  as  a  public  per- 
son, to  have  been  for  himself,  and  not  for  others,  has  but  little 
less  of  impiety  in  it. 

6,  It  is  granted,  that  the  Lord  Christ  having  a  human  na- 
ture, which  was  a  creature,  it  was  impossible  but  that  it  should 
be  subject  to  the  law  of  creation.  For  there  is  a  relation  that 
necessarily  arises  from,  and  depends  upon  the  beings  of  a  crea- 
tor and  a  creature.  Every  rational  creature  is  eternally  obliged 
from  the  nature  of  God,  and  its  relation  thereto,  to  love  liim, 
obey  him,  depend  upon  him,  submit  to  him,  and  to  make  him 
its  end,  blessedness,  and  reward.  But  the  law  of  creation  thus 
considered,  does  not  respect  the  world,  and  this  life  only,  but 
the  future  state  of  heaven,  and  eternity  also.  And  this  law, 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  subject  to,  in  heaven  and  glory, 
and  cannot  but  be  so,  whilst  it  is  a  creature,  and  not  God,  that 
is,  whilst  it  has  its  own  being.  Nor  do  any  men  fancy  such 
a  transfusion  of  divine  properties  into  the  human  nature  of 
Christ,  as  that  it  should  be  self-subsisting,  and  in  itself,  abso- 
lutely immense;  for  this  would  openly  destroy  it.  Yet  none 
will  say,  that  he  is  now  "  under  the  law,"  in  the  sense  intended 
by  the  Apostle.  But  the  law  in  the  sense  described,  the  hu- 
man nature  of  Christ  was  subject  to,  on  its  own  account,  whilst 
he  was  in  this  world.  And  this  is  sufficient  to  answer  the  ob- 
jection of  Socinus,  mentioned  at  the  entrance  of  this  discourse, 
namely,  "  that  if  the  Lord  Christ  were  not  obliged  to  obedi- 
ence for  himself,  then  might  he,  if  he  would,  neglect  the  whole 
law,  or  infringe  it."  For  besides  that  it  is  a  foolish  imagina- 
tion concerning  that  holy  thing  which  was  hypostatically 
united  to  the  Son  of  God,  and  thereby  rendered  incapable  of 
any  deviation  from  the  divine  will;  the  eternal  indispensable 
law  of  love,  adherence,  and  dependence  on  God,  under  which 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  was,  and  is,  as  a  creature,  gives 
sufficient  security  against  such  suppositions. 

But  there  is  another  consideration  of  the  law  of  God,  name- 
ly, as  it  is  imposed  on  creatures  by  especial  dispensation,  for 
some  time,  and  for  some  certain  end;  with  some  considera- 
tions, rules,  and  orders,  that  belong  not  essentially  to  the  law, 
as  before  described.  This  is  the  nature  of  the  written  law  of 
God,  which  the  Lord  Christ  was  made  under,  not  necessarily 


296  THE     IMPUTATION    OF    THE     OBEDIENCE     OF     CHRIST 

as  a  creature,  but  by  especial  dispensation.  For  the  law,  un- 
der this  consideration,  is  presented  to  us  as  such,  not  absolutely 
and  eternally,  but  whilst  we  are  in  this  world,  and  that  with 
this  especial  end,  that  by  obedience  thereto,  we  may  obtain 
the  reward  of  eternal  life.  And  it  is  evident,  that  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  law,  under  this  consideration,  ceases  when  we  come 
to  the  enjoyment  of  that  reward.  It  obliges  us  no  more  for- 
mally by  its  command,  "  Do  this  and  live,"  when  the  life  pro- 
mised is  enjoyed.  In  this  sense  the  Lord  Christ  was  not  made 
subject  to  the  law  for  himself,  nor  did  yield  obedience  to  it  for 
himself.  For  he  was  not  obliged  to  it  by  virtue  of  his  created 
condition.  Upon  the  first  instant  of  the  union  of  his  natures, 
being  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  and  separate  from  sinners,  he 
might,  notwithstanding  the  law  that  he  was  made  subject  to, 
have  been  stated  in  glory.  For  he  that  was  the  object  of  all 
divine  worship,  needed  not  any  new  obedience,  to  procure  for 
him  a  state  of  blessedness.  And  had  he  naturally,  merely  by 
virtue  of  his  being  a  creature,  been  subject  to  tlie  law  in  this 
sense,  he  must  have  been  so  eternally,  which  he  is  not.  For 
those  things  which  depend  solely  on  the  natures  of  God  and 
the  creature,  are  eternal  and  immutable.  Wherefore,  as  the 
law  in  this  sense  was  given  to  us,  not  absoliUely,  but  with  re- 
spect to  a  future  state  and  reward;  so  the  Lord  Christ  volun- 
tarily subjected  himself  to  it  for  us,  and  his  obedience  thereto 
was  for  us,  and  not  for  himself.  These  things  added  to  what 
1  have  formerly  written  on  this  subject,  whereto  nothing  has 
been  opposed,  but  a  few  impertinent  cavils,  are  sufficient  to 
discharge  the  first  part  of  that  charge  laid  down  before,  con- 
cerning the  impossibility  of  the  imputation  of  the  obedience  of 
Christ  to  us;  which  indeed  is  equal  to  the  impossibility  of  the 
imputation  of  the  disobedience  of  Adam  to  us;  whereby  the 
Apostle  tells  us,  that  we  were  all  made  sinners. 

The  second  part  of  the  objection  or  charge  against  the  impu- 
tation of  the  obedience  of  Christ  to  us,  is,  "  That  it  is  useless  to 
the  persons  that  are  to  be  justified.  For  whereas  they  have 
in  their  justification  the  pardon  of  all  their  sins,  they  are  thereby 
righteous,  and  have  a  right  or  title  to  life  and  blessedness:  for 
he  who  is  so  pardoned,  as  not  to  be  esteemed  guilty  of  any  sin 
of  omission  or  commission,  wants  nothing  that  is  requisite 
thereto.  For  he  is  supposed  to  liave  done  all  that  he  ought, 
and  to  have  omitted  nothing  required  of  him  in  a  way  of  duty. 
Hereby  he  becomes  not  unrighteous,  and  to  be  not  unrighteous, 
is  the  same  as  to  be  righteous.     As  he  that  is  not  dead,  is  alive. 


TO    THE    LAW,    DECLARED    AND    VINDICATED.  297 

Neither  is  there,  nor  can  there  be  any  middle  state  between 
death  and  hfe.  Wherefore  those  who  have  all  their  sins  for- 
given, have  the  blessedness  of  justification;  and  there  is  neither 
need,  nor  use  of  any  further  imputation  of  righteousness  to 
them."  And  sundry  other  things  of  the  same  nature,  are 
urged  to  same  purpose,  which  will  be  all  of  them  either  ob- 
viated in  the  ensuing  discourse,  or  answered  elsewhere. 

Answer.  This  cause  is  of  more  importance,  and  more  evi- 
dently stated  in  the  Scriptures,  than  to  be  turned  into  such 
niceties,  which  have  more  of  philosophical  subtilty,  than  theo- 
logical solidity,  in  them.  This  exception  therefore  might  be 
dismissed  without  further  answer,  than  what  is  given  us  in 
the  known  rule.  That  a  truth  well  established  and  confirmed, 
is  not  to  be  questioned,  much  less  relinquished  on  every  en- 
tangling sophism,  though  it  should  appear  insoluble.  But  as 
we  shall  see,  there  is  no  such  difficulty  in  these  arguings,  but 
what  may  easily  be  discussed.  And  because  the  matter  of  the 
plea  contained  in  them,  is  made  use  of  by  sundry  learned  per- 
sons who  yet  agree  with  us  in  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  of 
justification,  namely,  that  it  is  by  faith  alone,  without  works, 
through  the  innputation  of  the  merit  and  satisfaction  of  Christ, 
I  shall,  as  briefly  as  I  can,  discover  the  mistakes  that  it  pro- 
ceeds upon. 

1.  It  includes  a  supposition,  that  he  who  is  pardoned  his  sins 
of  omission  and  commission,  is  esteemed  to  have  done  all  that 
is  required  of  him,  and  to  have  committed  nothing  that  is  for- 
bidden. For  without  this  supposition,  the  bare  pardon  of  sin 
will  neither  make,  constitute,  nor  denominate  any  man  right- 
eous. But  this  is  far  otherwise,  nor  is  any  such  thing  included 
in  the  nature  of  pardon.  For  in  the  pardon  of  sin,  neither  God 
nor  man  judges,  that  he  who  has  sinned,  has  not  sinned; 
which  must  be  done,  if  he  who  is  pardoned  be  esteemed  to 
have  done  all  that  he  ought,  and  to  have  done  nothing  that  he 
ought  not  to  do.  If  a  man  be  brought  on  his  trial  for  any  evil 
fact,  and  being  legally  convicted  thereof,  be  discharged  by 
sovereign  pardon;  it  is  true,  that  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  he  is 
looked  upon  as  an  innocent  man,  as  to  the  punishment  that 
was  due  to  him;  but  no  man  thinks  that  he  is  made  righteous 
thereby,  or  is  esteemed  not  to  have  done  that  which  really  he 
has  done,  and  whereof  he  was  convicted.  Joab  and  Abiathar 
the  priest,  were  at  the  same  time  guilty  of  the  same  crime. 
Solomon  gives  order  that  Joab  be  put  to  death  for  his  crime; 
but  to  Abiathar  he  gives  a  pardon.     Did  he  thereby  m.ake. 


298  THE    I3IPUTATI0N    OF    THE    OBEDIENCE    OF    CHRIST 

declare  or  constitute  him  righteous?  He  himself  expresses 
the  contrary,  affirming  him  to  be  unrighteous  and  guilty,  only 
he  remitted  the  punishment  of  his  fault,  1  Kings  ii.  26.  Where- 
fore the  pardon  of  sin  discharges  the  guilty  person  from  being 
liable  or  obnoxious  to  anger,  wrath,  or  punishment,  due  to  his 
sin;  but  it  does  not  suppose,  nor  infer  in  the  least,  that  he  is 
thereby  or  ought  thereon  to  be  esteemed  or  adjudged  to  have 
done  no  evil,  and  to  have  fulfilled  all  righteousness.  Some  say, 
pardon  gives  a  righteousness  of  innocency,  but  not  of  obe- 
dience. But  it  cannot  give  a  righteousness  of  innocency,  ab- 
solutely, such  as  Adam  had.  For  he  had  actually  done  no  evil. 
It  only  removes  guilt,  which  is  the  respect  of  sin  to  punish- 
ment, ensuing  on  the  sanction  of  the  law.  And  this  supposi- 
tion, which  is  an  evident  mistake,  animates  this  whole  ob- 
jection. 

The  like  may  be  said  of  what  is  in  like  manner  supposed, 
namely,  that  not  to  be  unrighteous,  which  a  man  is  on  the 
pardon  of  sin,  is  the  same  with  being  righteous.  For  if  not 
to  be  unrighteous  be  taken  privatively,  it  is  the  same  with 
being  just  or  righteous;  for  it  supposes  that  he  who  is  so,  has 
done  all  the  duty  that  is  required  of  him,  that  he  may  be 
righteous.  But  not  to  be  unrighteous,  negatively,  as  the  ex- 
pression is  here  used,  does  not  do  so.  For  at  best  it  supposes 
no  more,  but  that  a  man  as  yet  has  done  nothing  actually 
against  the  rule  of  righteousness.  Now  this  may  be  when 
yet  he  has  performed  none  of  the  duties  that  are  required  of 
him  to  constitute  him  righteous,  because  the  times  and  occa- 
sions of  them  are  not  yet.  And  so  it  was  with  Adam  in  the 
state  of  innocency;  which  is  the  height  of  what  can  be  attained 
by  the  complete  pardon  of  sin. 

2.  It  proceeds  on  this  supposition,  that  the  law,  in  case  of 
sin,  does  not  oblige  to  punishment  and  obedience  both;  so  that 
it  is  not  satisfied,  fulfilled,  or  complied  with,  unless  it  be  an- 
swered with  respect  to  both.  For  if  it  does  so,  then  the  pardon 
of  sin,  which  only  frees  us  from  the  penalty  of  the  law,  yet 
leaves  it  necessary,  that  obedience  be  performed  to  it,  even 
all  that  it  requires.  But  this,  in  my  judgment,  is  an  evident 
mistake,  and  that  such  as  does  not  establish  the  law,  but  make 
it  void.     And  this  I  shall  demonstrate. 

1.  The  law  has  two  parts  or  powers.  (1)  Its  preceptive  part, 
commanding  and  requiring  obedience,  with  a  promise  of  life 
annexed;  "  Do  this  and  live."  (2)  The  sanction  on  supposi- 
tion of  disobedience,  binding  the  sinner  to  punishment,  or  a 


TO    THE  LAW,    DECLARED   AND    VINDICATED.  299 

mete  recompense  of  reward.  "  In  the  day  thou  sinnest,  thou 
shalt  die."  And  every  law  properly  so  called,  proceeds  on 
these  suppositions  of  obedience  or  disobedience,  whence  its 
commanding  and  punishing  power  are  inseparable  from  its 
nature. 

2.  This  law,  whereof  we  speak,  was  first  given  to  man  in 
innocency;  and  therefore  the  first  power  of  it,  was  only  in  act. 
It  obliged  only  to  obedience.  For  an  innocent  person  could 
not  be  obnoxious  to  its  sanction,  which  contained  only  an  obli- 
gation to  punishment,  on  supposition  of  disobedience.  It  could 
not  therefore  oblige  our  first  parents  to  obedience  and  punish- 
ment both,  seeing  its  obligation  to  punishment  could  not  be  in 
actual  force,  but  on  supposition  of  actual  disobedience.  A  moral 
cause  of,  and  motive  to  obedience  it  was,  and  had  an  influence 
upon  the  preservation  of  man  from  sin.  To  that  end  it  was 
said  to  him,  "In  the  day  thou  eatest,  thou  shalt  surely  die." 
The  neglect  hereof,  and  of  that  ruling  influence  which  it  ought 
to  have  had  on  the  minds  of  our  first  parents,  opened  the  door 
to  the  entrance  of  sin.  But  it  implies  a  contradiction,  that  an 
innocent  person  should  be  under  an  actual  obligation  to  pun- 
ishment from  the  sanction  of  the  law.  It  bound  only  to  obe- 
dience, as  all  laws  with  penalties  do,  before  their  transgression. 
But 

3.  On  the  committing  of  sin,  (and  it  is  so  with  every  one  that 
is  guilty  of  sin)  man  came  under  an  actual  obligation  to  punish- 
ment. This  is  no  more  questionable  than  whether  at  first  he 
was  under  an  obligation  to  obedience.  But  then  the  question 
is,  whether  the  first  intention  and  obligation  of  the  law  to  obe- 
dience ceases  to  affect  tiie  sinner,  or  continues  so,  as  at  the 
same  time  to  oblige  him  to  obedience  and  punishment,  both  its 
powers  being  in  act  towards  him.     And  hereto  I  say 

1.  Had  the  punishment  threatened,  been  immediately  inflict- 
ed to  the  utmost  of  what  was  contained  in  it,  this  could  have 
been  no  question.  For  man  had  died  immediately  both  tem- 
porally and  eternally,  and  been  cast  out  of  that  state  wherein 
alone  he  could  stand  in  any  relation  to  the  preceptive  power  of 
the  law.  He  that  is  finally  executed,  has  fulfilled  the  law  so, 
that  he  owes  no  more  obedience  to  it.     But 

2.  God  in  his  wisdom  and  patience,  has  otherwise  disposed 
of  things.  Man  is  continued  a  viator  still  in  the  way  to  his 
end,  and  not  fully  stated  in  his  eternal  and  unchangeable  con- 
dition, wherein  neither  promise  nor  threatening,  reward  nor 
punishment  could  be  proposed  to  him.     In  this  condition  he 


oUU  THE    IMPUTATION    OF    THE    OBEDIENCE    OF   CHRIST 

falls  under  a  twofold  consideration.  (1)  Of  a  guilty  person,  and 
SO  is  obliged  to  the  full  punishment,  that  the  law  threatens.  This 
is  not  denied.  (2)  Of  a  man,  a  rational  creature  of  God,  not 
yet  brought  to  his  eternal  end. 

3.  In  this  state,  the  law  is  the  only  instrument  and  means  of 
the  continuance  of  the  relation  between  God  and  him.  Where- 
fore under  this  consideration  it  cannot  but  still  obhge  him  to 
obedience,  unless  we  shall  say,  that  by  his  sin  he  has  exempted 
himself  from  the  government  of  God.  Wherefore  it  is  by  the 
law,  that  the  rule  and  government  of  God  over  men,  is  contin- 
ued whilst  they  are  in  statu  viatorum:  for  every  disobedience, 
every  transgression  of  its  rule  and  order  as  to  its  commanding 
power  casts  us  afresh,  and  further,  under  its  power  of  obliging 
to  punishment. 

Neither  can  these  things  be  otherwise;  nor  can  any  man 
living,  not  the  worst  of  men,  choose  but  judge  himself,  whilst  he 
is  in  this  world,  obliged  to  give  obedience  to  the  law  of  God, 
according  to  the  notices  that  he  has  of  it  by  the  light  of  nature 
or  otherwise.  A  wicked  servant  that  is  punished  for  his  fault, 
if  it  be  with  such  a  punishment  as  yet  continues  his  being,  and 
his  state  of  servitude,  is  not  by  his  punishment  freed  from  an 
obligation  to  duty,  according  to  the  rule  of  it.  Yea,  his  obliga- 
tion to  duty,  with  respect  to  that  crime  for  which  he  was  pun- 
ished, is  not  dissolved,  until  his  punishment  be  capital,  and  so 
put  an  end  to  his  state.  Wherefore  seeing  that  by  the  pardon 
of  sin,  we  are  freed  only  from  the  obligation  to  punishment, 
there  is  moreover  required  to  our  justification,  an  obedience  to 
what  the  law  requires. 

And  this  greatly  strengthens  the  argument,  in  whose  vindi- 
cation we  are  engaged;  for  we,  being  sinners,  were  obnoxious 
both  to  the  command  and  curse  of  the  law.  Both  must  be  an- 
swered, or  we  cannot  be  justified.  And  as  the  Lord  Christ 
could  not,  by  his  most  perfect  obedience,  satisfy  the  curse  of 
the  law, "  Dying  thou  shalt  die;"  so  by  the  utmost  of  his  suffer- 
ing, he  could  not  fulfil  the  command  of  the  law,  "Do  this  and 
live."  Passion  as  passion  is  not  obedience,  though  there  may 
be  obedience  in  suffering,  as  there  was  in  tliat  of  Christ  to  the 
height.  Wherefore  as  we  plead  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  im- 
puted to  us  for  our  justification,  so  we  deny  that  it  is  imputed 
to  us  for  our  righteousness.  For  by  the  imputation  of  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ,  our  sins  are  remitted  or  pardoned,  and  we  are 
delivered  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  which  he  underwent.  But 
we  are  not  thence  esteemed  just  or  righteous,  which  we  cannot 


TO    THE   LAW,    DECLARED    AND    VINDICATED.  301 

be  without  respect  to  the  fulfilUngof  the  commandsof  the  law, 
or  the  obedience  by  it  required.  The  whole  matter  is  excel- 
lently expressed  by  Grotius  in  the  words  before  alleged.  * 

3.  The  objection  mentioned  proceeds  also  on  this  supposi- 
tion, that  pardon  of  sin  gives  title  to  eternal  blessedness  in  the 
enjoyment  of  God:  for  justification  does  so,  and  according  to 
the  authors  of  this  opinion,  no  other  righteousness  is  required 
thereto  but  pardon  of  sin.  That  justification  gives  right  and 
title  to  adoption,  acceptance  with  God,  and  the  heavenly  inheri- 
tance, I  suppose  will  not  be  denied,  and  it  has  been  proved 
already.  Pardon  of  sin  depends  solely  on  the  death  or  suffer- 
ing of  Christ:  "in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his 
blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his 
grace,"  Ephes.  i.  7.  But  suffering  for  punishment  gives  right 
and  title  to  nothing,  only  satisfies  for  something;  nor  does  it 
deserve  any  reward:  it  is  no  where  said.  Suffer  this  and  live, 
but  Do  this  and  live. 

These  things,  I  confess,  are  inseparably  connected  in  the 
ordinance,  appointment,  and  covenant  of  God.  Whosoever 
has  his  sins  pardoned,  is  accepted  with  God,  has  right  to  eter- 
nal blessedness.  These  things  are  inseparable,  but  they  are 
not  one  and  the  same.  And  by  reason  of  their  inseparable  re- 
lation, are  they  so  put  together  by  the  Apostle,  Rom.  iv.  6 — S. 
"  Even  as  David  also  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man,  to 
whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works:  Blessed 
are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are 
covered:  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  im- 
pute sin."  It  is  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  that  gives 
right  to  blessedness;  but  pardon  of, sin  is  inseparable  from  it, 
and  an  effect  of  it,  both  being  opposed  to  justification  by  works, 
or  an  internal  righteousness  of  our  own.  But  it  is  one  thing 
to  be  freed  from  being  liable  to  eternal  death;  and  another  to 
have  right  and  title  to  a  blessed  and  eternal  life.  It  is'one 
thing  to  be  "  redeemed  from  under  the  law,"  that  is  the  curse 
of  it;  another  to  receive  the  "  adoption  of  sons."  One  thing 
to  be  freed  from  the  curse,  another  to  have  the  blessing  of 
Abraham  come  upon  us;  as  the  Apostle  distinguishes  these 
things.  Gal.  iii.  13,  14;  iv.  4,  5.  And  so  does  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  Acts  xxvi.  IS.     "  That  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of 

*  Cum  duo  nobis  peperisse  Christum  dixerimus  impunitatem  et  priEmium,  illud 
satisfactioni,  hoc  mcrito  Christi  distincte  tribuit  vetus  ecclesla.  Satisfactio  consistit 
in  meritorum  translatione,  mcritum  in  perfectissimae  obediei:^£e  pro  nobis  prtestitte 
imputatione. 

26 


302 


THE    IMPUTATION    OF    THE    OBEDIENCE    OF    CIIHIST 


sins,  and  inheritance  (a  lot  and  right  to  the  inheritance)  amongst 
them  that  are  sanctified  by  faith  that  is  in  me."  A^fcrtj  ai-iapfiuv 
which  we  have  by  faith  in  Christ  is  only  a  "  dismission  of  sin" 
from  being  pleadable  to  our  condemnation;  on  which  account 
"  there  is  no  condemnation  unto  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus." 
But  a  riglit  and  title  to  glory,  or  the  heavenly  inheritance,  it 
gives  not.  Can  it  be  supposed,  that  all  the  great  and  glorious 
eftects  of  present  grace  and  future  blessedness,  should  follow 
necessarily  on,  and  be  the  effect  of  mere  pardon  of  sin?  Can 
we  not  be  pardoned,  but  we  must  thereby  of  necassity  be  made 
sons,  heirs  of  God,  and  co-heirs  with  Christ? 

Pardon  of  sin  is  in  God,  with  respect  to  the  sinner,  a  free 
gratuitous  act;  "forgiveness  of  sin  through  the  riches  of  his 
grace."  But  with  respect  to  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  it  is  an 
act  in  judgment.  For  on  the  consideration  thereof  as  imputed 
to  him,  God  absolves  and  acquits  the  sinner  upon  his  trial. 
But  pardon  on  a  juridical  trial,  on  what  consideration  soever 
it  be  granted,  gives  no  right  nor  title  to  any  favour,  benefit,  or 
privilege,  but  only  mere  deliverance.  It  is  one  thing  to  be  ac- 
quitted before  the  throne  of  a  king,  of  crimes  laid  to  the  charge 
of  any  man,  which  may  be  done  by  clemency,  or  on  otlier  con- 
siderations; another  to  be  made  his  son  by  adoption,  and  heir 
to  his  kingdom. 

And  these  things  are  represented  to  us  in  the  Scripture,  as 
distinct  and  depending  on  distinct  causes.  So  are  they  in  the 
vision  concerning  Joshua  the  high  priest,  Zech.  iii.  4,  5.  "  And 
he  answered  and  spake  unto  those  that  stood  before  him,  say- 
ing, Take  away  the  filthy  garments  from  him.  And  unto  him 
he  said,  behold  I  have  caused  thine  iniquity  to  pass  from  thee; 
and  I  will  clothe  thee  with  change  of  raiment.  And  I  said. 
Let  them  set  a  fair  mitre  upon  his  head;  so  they  set  a  tair 
mitre  on  his  head,  and  clothed  him  witli  garments."  It  has 
been  generally  granted,  that  we  have  here  a  representation  of 
the  justification  of  a  sinner  before  God.  And  the  taking  away 
of  filthy  garments,  is  expounded  by  the  passing  away  of  ini- 
quity. When  a  man's  filthy  garments  are  taken  away,  he  is 
no  more  defiled  with  them;  but  he  is  not  thereby  clothed. 
This  is  an  additional  grace  and  favour  thereto,  namely  to  be 
clothed  with  change  of  garments.  And  what  this  raiment  is, 
is  declared  Isa.  Ixi.  10:  "  He  hath  clothed  me  with  the  gar- 
ments of  salvation,  he  hath  covered  me  with  the  robe  of  right- 
eousness;" which  the  Apostle  alludes  to,  Phil.  iii.  9.  Where- 
fore these  thing^re  distinct;  namely,  the  taking  away  of  the 


TO    THE    LAW,    DECLARED     AND     VINDICATED.  303 

filthy  garments,  and  the  clothing  of  us  with  change  of  raiment; 
or  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  the  robe  of  righteousness;  by  the  one 
are  we  freed  from  condemnation,  by  the  other  we  have  right 
to  salvation.  And  the  same  is  in  like  manner  represented 
Ezek.  xvi.  6 — 12. 

This  place  I  had  formerly  urged  to  this  purpose  about  com- 
munion with  God,  whicli  Mr.  Hotchkiss  in  his  usual  man- 
ner attempts  to  answer.  And  to  omit  his  reviling  expres- 
sions, with  the  crude  unproved  assertion  of  his  own  conceits, 
his  answer  is,  that  by  the  change  of  raiment  mentioned  in  the 
prophet,  our  own  personal  righteousness  is  intended.  For  he 
acknowledges  that  our  justification  before  God  is  here  repre- 
sented. And  so  also  he  expounds  the  place  produced  in  the 
confirmation  of  the  exposition  given,  Isa.  Ixi.  10,  where  this 
change  of  raiment  is  called  "  the  garments  of  salvation  and  the 
robe  of  righteousness;"  and  thereon  affirms,  that  our  righteous- 
ness itself,  before  God,  is  our  personal  righteousness;  that  is, 
in  our  justification  before  him,  which  is  the  only  thing  in  ques- 
tion. To  all  which  presumptions,  I  shall  oppose  only  the  tes- 
timony of  the  same  prophet,  which  he  may  consider  at  his 
leisure,  and  which,  at  one  time  or  other,  he  will  subscribe  to. 
Isa.  Ixiv.  6.  "  We  are  all  as  an  unclean  thing,  and  all  our  right- 
eousnesses are  as  fihhy  rags."  He  who  can  make  garments 
of  salvation,  and  robes  of  righteousness  of  these  filthy  rags, 
has  a  skill  in  composing  spiritual  vestments  that  I  am  not  ac- 
quainted with.  What  remains  in  the  chapter  wherein  this  an- 
swer is  given  to  that  testimony  of  the  Scripture,  I  shall  take 
no  notice  of,  it  being  after  his  accustomed  manner,  only  a 
perverse  wresting  of  my  words  to  such  a  sense,  as  may  seem 
to  countenance  him  in  casting  a  reproach  upon  myself  and 
others. 

There  is  therefore  no  force  in  the  comparing  of  these  things 
to  life  and  death  natiu'al,  which  are  immediately  opposed;  so 
that  he  who  is  not  dead  is  alive,  and  he  who  is  alive,  is  not 
dead,  there  being  no  distinct  state  between  that  of  life  and  death. 
For  these  things  being  of  different  natures,  the  comparison  be- 
tween them  is  no  way  argumentative.  Though  it  maybe  so 
in  things  natural,  it  is  otherwise  in  things  moral  and  political, 
where  a  proper  representation  of  justification  may  be  taken,  as 
it  is  forensic.  If  it  were  so,  that  tliere  is  no  difference  between 
being  acquitted  of  a  crime  at  the  bar  of  a  judge,  and  a  right  to 
a  kingdom,  nor  any  different  state  between  these  things,  it 
would  prove,  that  there  is  no  intermediate  estate  between  being 


304 


THE   IMPUTATION    OF   THE    OBEDIENCE    OF    CHRIST 


pardoned,  and  having  a  right  to  the  heavenly  inheritance.  But 
this  is  a  vain  imagination. 

It  is  true,  that  right  to  eternal  life,  succeeds  to  freedom  from 
the  guilt  of  eternal  death.  "That  they  may  receive  forgiveness 
ofsins,  andan  inheritance  among  them  that  are  sanctified." 
But  it  does  not  do  so,  out  of  a  necessity  in  the  nature  of  the 
things  themselves,  but  only  in  the  free  constitution  of  God. 
Believers  have  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  an  immediate  right  and 
title  to  the  favour  of  God,  the  adoption  of  sons,  and  eternal 
life.  But  there  is  another  state  in  the  nature  of  the  things 
themselves,  and  this  might  have  been  so  actually,  had  it  so 
seemed  good  to  God;  for  who  sees  not,  that  there  is  a  status 
or  conditio  personse,  wherein  he  is  neither  under  the  guilt  of 
condemnation,  nor  has  an  immediate  right  and  title  to  glory,  in 
the  way  of  inheritance.  God  might  have  pardoned  men  all 
their  'sins  past,  and  placed  them  in  a  state  and  condition  of 
seeking  righteousness  for  the  future,  by  the  works  of  the  law, 
that  so  they  might  have  lived:  for  this  would  answer  the  origi- 
nal state  of  Adam,  But  God  has  not  done  so ;  true :  but  whereas 
he  might  have  done  so,  it  is  evident  that  the  disposal  of  men 
into  this  state  and  condition  of  right  to  life  and  salvation,  does 
not  depend  on,  nor  proceed  from  the  pardon  of  sin,  but  has  an- 
other cause,  which  is  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to  us,  as  he  fulfilled  the  law  for  us. 

And  in  truth,  this  is  the  opinion  of  the  most  of  our  adversa- 
ries in  this  cause:  for  they  contend,  that  over  and  above  the 
remission  of  sin,  which  some  of  them  say  is  absolute,  without 
any  respect  to  the  merit  or  satisfaction  of  Christ,  while  others 
refer  it  to  them;  there  is  moreover,  a  righteousness  of  works 
required  to  our  justification ;  only  they  say,  this  is  our  own 
incomplete,  imperfect  righteousness,  imputed  to  us,  as  if  it  were 
perfect,  that  is  for  what  it  is  not;  and  not  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  imputed  to  us  for  what  it  is. 

From  what  has  been  discoursed,  it  is  evident  that,  to  our 
justification  before  God,  is  required,  not  only  that  we  be  freed 
from  the  damnatory  sentence  of  the  law,  which  we  are  by  the 
pardon  of  sin,  but  moreover,  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law 
be  fulfilled  in  us,  or,  that  we  have  a  righteousness  answering 
the  obedience  that  the  law  requires,  whereon  our  acceptance 
with  God,  through  the  riches  of  his  grace,  and  our  title  to  the 
heavenly  inheritance,  depend.  This  we  have  not  in  and  of  our- 
selves, nor  can  attain  to,  as  has  been  proved.  Wherefore  the 
perfect  obedience  and  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us, 
or  in  the  sight  of  God  we  can  never  be  justified. 


TO    THE    LAW,    DECLARED   AND    VINDICATED.  305 

Nor  are  the  cavilling  objections  of  the  Socinians,  and  those 
that  follow  them,  of  any  force  against  the  truth  herein.  They 
tell  us  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  can  be  imputed  but  to 
one,  if  to  any.  "  For  who  can  suppose  that  the  same  righteous- 
ness of  one  should  become  the  righteousness  of  many,  even  of 
all  that  believe?  Besides  he  performed  not  all  the  duties  that 
are  required  of  us  in  all  our  relations,  he  being  never  placed 
in  them."  These  things,  I  say,  are  both  foolish  and  impious, 
destructive  to  the  whole  gospel.  For  all  things  here  depend  on 
the  ordination  of  God.  It  is  his  ordinance  that  "as  through 
the  offence  of  one  many  are  dead  ;  so  his  grace,  and  the  gift  of 
grace,  through  one  man  Christ  Jesus  hath  abounded  unto  many; 
and  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 
condemnation,  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  tlie  free  gift  came 
upon  all  unto  the  righteousness  of  life,  and  by  the  obedience  of 
one  many  are  made  rigliteous;"  as  the  Apostle  argues,  Rom.  v. 
*'  For  God  sent  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  and 
for  sin,  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in 
us,"  Rom.  viii.  3,  4.  For  "he  was  ,the,end  of  the  law  (the 
whole  end  of  it)  for  righteousness  'HiTto  them  that  believe," 
Rom.  X.  4.  This  is  the  appointment  of  the  wisdom,  righteous- 
ness and  grace  of  God,  that  the  whole  righteousness  and  obe- 
dience of  Christ  should  be  accepted  as  our  complete  righteous-* 
ness  before  him,  imputed  to  us  by  his  grace,  and  applied  to  us 
or  made  ours  through  believing,  and  consequently  to  all  that 
believe.  And  if  the  actual  sin  of  Adam  be  imputed  to  us  all, 
who  derive  oiu'  nature  from  him  to  condemnation,  though 
he  sinned  not  in  our  circumstances  and  relations,  is  it  strange 
that  the  actual  obedience  of  Christ  should  be  imputed  to  them 
who  derive  a  spiritual  nature  from  him,  to  the  justification  of 
life?  Besides  both  the  satisfaction  and  obedience  of  Christ,  as 
relating  to  his  person,  were  in  some  sense  infinite,  that  is,  of  an 
infinite  value,  and  so  cannot  be  considered  in  parts,  as  though 
one  part  of  it  were  imputed  to  one,  and  another  to  another,  but 
the  whole  is  imputed  to  every  one  that  believes;  and  if  the 
.Israelites  could  say,  that  David  was  worth  ten  thousand  of 
them,  2  Sam.  xxi.  3,  we  may  well  allow  the  Lord  Christ,  and 
so  what  he  did  and  suffered,  to  be  more  than  all  of  us,  and  all 
that  we  can  do  and  suffer. 

There  are  also  sundry  other  mistakes. that  concur  lo  that 
part  of  the  charge  against  the  imputation  oT'  tlie  righteousness 
of  Christ  to  us,  which  we  have  now  considered;  I  say  of 
his  righteousness;  for  the  Apostle  in  this  case  uses  those  two 

26* 


306  THE     IMPUTATION    OF    THE    OBEDIENCE     OF   CHRIST 

words  bLxaiioixa,  and  vTiaxoi^,  righteousness  and  obedience,  as  of 
the  same  signification,  Rom.  v.  IS,  19.  Such  are  those,  that 
remission  of  sin  and  justification  are  the  same,  or  that  justifica- 
tion consists  only  in  the  remission  of  sin;  that  faith  itself  as  our 
act  and  duty,  being  the  condition  of  the  covenant,  is  imputed 
to  us  for  righteousness;  or  that  we  have  a  personal  inherent 
righteousness  of  our  own,  that  one  way  or  other  is  our  right- 
eousness before  God  for  justification,  either  as  a  condition  or  a 
disposition  to  it;  or  as  having  a  congruity  in  deserving  the 
grace  of  justification,  or  a  downright  merit  of  condignity  there- 
of. For  all  these  are  but  various  expressions  of  the  same  thing, 
according  to  the  variety  of  the  conceptions  of  the  minds  of  men 
about  it.  But  they  have  been  all  considered  and  removed  in 
our  preceding  discourses. 

To  close  this  argument  and  our  vindication  of  if,  and  there- 
with to  obviate  an  objection,  I  acknowledge  that  our  blessed- 
ness and  hfe  eternal  is  in  the  Scripture  oft-times  ascribed  to 
the  death  of  Christ:  but  it  is  so  (1)  as  the  principal  cause  of 
the  whole,  and  as  that  vyithout  which  no  imputation  of  obe- 
dience could  have  justified  us;  for  the  penalty  of  the  law  was 
indispensably  to  be  undergone.  (2)  It  is  so,  not  exclusively 
of  all  obedience,  whereof  mention  is  made  in  other  places,  but 
•as  that  whereto  it  is  inseparably  conjoined.  Christus  in  vita 
passivam  hahuit  actionem;  in  mortc  passionem  activam  sus- 
tinuit;  durn  salutem  operareiur  in  rnedio  terrse.  Bernard. 
"  In  order  to  work  out  salvation  for  men  on  earth,  Christ  led  a 
life  of  passive  action,  and  died  a  death  of  active  passion." 
And  so  it  is  also  ascribed  to  his  resurrection,  with  respect  to 
evidence  and  manifestation.  But  the  death  of  Christ  exclu- 
sively as  to  his  obedience  is  no  where  asserted  as  the  cause  of 
eternal  life,  comprising  that  exceeding  weight  of  glory  where- 
with it  is  accompanied. 

Hitherto  we  have  treated  of  and  vindicated  the  imputation 
of  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  to  us,  as  the  truth  of  it  was 
deduced  from  the  preceding  argument  about  the  obligation  of 
the  law  of  creation.  I  shall  now  briefly  confirm  it  with  other 
reasons  and  testimonies. 

1.  That  which  Christ  the  mediator  and  surety  of  the  cove- 
nant, did  in  obedience  to  God,  in  the  discharge  and  perform- 
ance of  his  office,  he  did  for  us,  and  that  is  imputed  to  us.  This 
has  been  proved  already,  and  it  has  too  great  an  evidence  of 
truth  to  be  denied.  He  was  "  born  to  us,  given  to  us,"  Isa. 
ix.  6.     "  For  what  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak 


TO    THE   LAW,    DECLARED    AND    VINDICATED.  307 

through  the  flesh,  God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of 
sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh,  that  the 
righteousness  of  the  law  might  he  fulfilled  in  us,"  Rom.  viii. 
3,  4.  Whatever  is  spoken  of  the  grace,  love  and  purpose  of 
God  in  sending  or  giving  his  Son,  or  of  the  love,  grace  and 
condescension  of  the  Son  in  coming  and  undertaking  the  work 
of  redemption  designed  to  him,  or  of  the  office  itself  of  a  me- 
diator or  surety,  gives  testimony  to  this  assertion.  Yea,  it  is 
the  fundamental  principle  of  the  gospel,  and  of  the  faith  of  all 
that  truly  believe.  As  for  those  by  whom  the  divine  person 
and  satisfaction  of  Christ  are  denied,  whereby  they  overturn 
the  whole  work  of  his  mediation,  we  do  not  at  present  con- 
sider them.  Wherefore  what  he  so  did,  is  to  be  inquired  into. 
And 

1.  The  Lord  Christ  our  mediator  and  surety  was  in  his  hu- 
man nature  "  made  under  the  law,"  Gal  iv.  1.  That  he  was 
not  so  for  himself  by  the  necessity  of  his  condition,  we  have 
proved  before.  It  was  therefore /or  us.  But  as  made  "  under 
the  law,"  he  yielded  obedience  to  it;  this  therefore  was  for  us, 
and  is  imputed  to  us.  The  exception  of  the  Socinians  that  it 
is  the  judicial  law  only  that  is  intended,  is  too  frivolous  to  be 
insisted  on.  For  he  was  made  under  that  law  whose  curse 
we  are  delivered  from.  And  if  we  are  delivered  only  from 
the  curse  of  the  law  of  Moses,  wherein  they  contend  that  (here 
were  neither  promises  nor  threatening  of  eternal  things,  of  any 
thing  beyond  this  present  life,  we  are  still  in  our  sins,  under 
the  curse  of  the  moral  law,  notwithstanding  all  that  he  has 
done  for  us.  It  is  excepted  with  more  colour  of  sobriety,  that 
he  was  made  under  the  law  only  as  to  the  curse  of  it.  But  it 
is  plain  in  the  text,  that  Christ  was  made  under  the  law  as 
we  are  under  it.  He  was  "made  under  the  law  to  redeem 
them  that  were  under  the  law."  And  if  he  was  not  made  so 
as  we  are,  there  is  no  consequence  from  his  being  made  under 
it,  to  our  redemption  from  it.  But  we  are  so  under  the  law, 
as  not  only  to  be  obnoxious  to  the  curse,  but  so  as  to  be  obliged 
to  all  the  obedience  that  it  required,  as  has  been  proved.  And 
if  the  Lord  Christ  has  redeemed  us  only  from  the  curse  of  it  by 
undergoing  it,  leaving  us  in  ourselves  to  answer  its  obligation 
to  obedience,  we  are  not  freed  nor  delivered.  And  the  expres- 
sion of  "under  the  law,"  in  the  first  place  and  properly,  signi- 
fies being  under  the  obligation  of  it  to  obedience,  and  conse- 
qently  only  with  respect  to  the  curse,  Gal.  iv.  21.  "Tell  me 
ye  that  desire  to  be  under  the  law."     They  did  not  desire  to 


308 


THE    IMPUTATION    OF    THE    OBEDIENCE    OF    CHRIST 


be  under  the  curse  of  the  law,  but  only  its  obhgation  to  obe- 
dience; which  ill  all  usage  of  speech,  is  the  first  proper  sense 
of  that  expression.  Wherefore  the  Lord  Christ  being  made 
under  the  law  for  us,  he  yielded  perfect  obedience  to  it  for  us, 
■which  is  therefore  imputed  to  us.  For  that  what  he  did,  was 
done  for  us,  depends  solely  on  imputation. 

2.  As  he  was  thus  made  under  the  law,  so  he  actually  ful- 
filled it  by  his  obedience  to  it.  So  he  testifies  concerning  him- 
self; "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  and  the 
prophets.  I  am  not  come  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil,"  Matt,  v^  17. 
These  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  recorded  by  the 
Evangelist,  the  Jews  continually  object  against  the  Christians, 
as  contradictory  to  what  they  pretend  to  be  done  by  him, 
namely  that  he  has  destroyed  and  taken  away  the  law.  And 
Maimonides  in  his  treatise  De  Fundamentis  Lcgis,  has  many 
blasphemous  reflections  on  the  Lord  Christ  as  a  false  propliet 
in  this  matter.  But  the  reconciliation  is  plain  and  easy.  There 
was  a  twofold  law  given  to  the  church,  the  moral  and  the  cere- 
monial law.  The  first  as  we  have  proved  is  of  eternal  obligation. 
The  other  was  given  only  for  a  time.  That  the  latter  of  these 
was  to  be  taken  awaj^  and  abolished,  the  apostle  proves  with 
invincible  testimonies,  out  of  the  Old  Testament  against  the 
obstinate  Jews,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Yet  was  it  not 
to  be  taken  away  without  its  accomplishment,  when  it  ceased 
of  itself.  Wherefore  our  Lord  Christ  did  no  otherwise  dissolve 
or  destroy  that  law,  but  by  the  accomplishment  of  it;  and  so 
he  put  an  end  to  it,  as  is  fully  declared,  Epiies.  ii.  14 — 16. 
But  the  law  xat'  Hoxr^v,  that  which  obliges  all  men  to  obe- 
dience to  God  always,  became  woi  xataxvaa-i,  "to  destroy;" 
tliat  is  deffjjoac,  to  abolish  it,  as  an  aQBttjaii  is  ascribed  to  the 
Mosaical  law,  Heb.  ix.,*  or  xatapyrjaat,  which  the  apostle  de- 
nies to  be  done  by  Christ,  and  faith  in  him,  Rom.  iii.  31.  "  Do 
we  then  make  void  xafapyof^wEi' the  law  through  faith?  God 
forbid;  yea  we  establish  the  law."  No^ov  laravav  is  to  confirm 
its  obligation  to  obedience,  which  is  done  by  faith  only  with 
respect  to  the  moral  law,  the  other  being  evacuated  as  to  any 
power  of  obliging  to  obedience.  This  therefore  is  the  law  which 
our  Lord  Christ  affirms  that  he  came  not  to  destroy;  so  he  ex- 
pressly declares  in  his  ensuing  discourse,  showing  both  its 
power  of  obliging  us  always  to  obedience,  and  giving  an  ex- 

*  In  the  same  sense  is  the  word  used,  Matt.  xxiv.  2;  xxvi.  6;  xxvii.  40. 
Marx  xiii.  2;  xiv.  58;  xv.  21).  Luke  xxi.  G.  Acts  v.  38,  3d  ;  vi.  14.  Rom.  xiv.  20. 
2  Cor.  V.  1.  Gal.  ii.  18,  mostly  with  an  accusative  case,  of  the  things  spoken  of. 


TO    THE    LAW,    DECLARED    AND     VINDICATED.  309 

position  of  it.  This  law  the  Lord  Christ  came  "to  fulfil." 
rijij^pcotfat  tov  voi^ov,  in  the  Scripture  is  the  same  with  iixTi-Kriaai, 
tov  vofiov  in  other  writers;  that  is,  to  yield  full  perfect  obedience 
to  the  commands  of  the  law,  whereby  they  are  absolutely  ful- 
filled; fiXrjpoiaai,  voixov,  is  uot  to  make  the  law  perfect;  for  it  was 
always  vojxoi  t-cuioi,  a  "perfect  law,"  James  i.  25,  but  to  yield 
perfect  obedience  to  it;  the  same  that  our  Saviour  calls  n-KTjpuiaai 
Tiaaav  Sixaioavvtiv,  Matt,  iii.  3,  15,  "  to  fulfil  all  righteousness;" 
that  is,  by  obedience  to  all  God's  commands  and  institutions, 
as  is  evident  in  the  place.  So  the  apostle  uses  the  same  ex- 
pression, Rom.  xiii.  S,  •'"'he  that  loveth  another  hath  fulfilled 
the  law." 

It  is  a  vain  exception  that  Christ  fulfilled  the  law  by  his  doc- 
trine, in  the  exposition  of  it.  The  opposition  between  the  words 
to  fuljil  and  to  destroy,  will  admit  of  no  such  sense.  And  our 
Saviour  himself  expounds  this  fulfilling  of  the  law,  by  doing 
the  commands  of  it,  v.  19.  Wherefore  the  Lord  Christ,  as  our 
mediator  and  surety,  fulfilling  the  law  by  yielding  perfect  obe- 
dience thereto,  did  it  for  us,  and  to  us  it  is  imputed. 

This  is  plainly  affirmed  by  the  Apostle,  Rom.  v.  IS,  19. 
"  Therefore  as  by  the  ofience  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the 
free  gift  came  upon  all  men  to  justification  of  life.  For  as  by 
the  disobedience  of  one  many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obe- 
dience of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  The  full  plea 
from  and  vindication  of  this  testimony,  I  refer  to  its  proper 
place  in  the  testimonies  given  to  the  imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  to  our  justification  in  general.  Here  I  shall  only 
observe  that  the  Apostle  expressly  and  in  terms  affirms  that  by 
the  obedience  of  Christ,  we  are  made  righteous  or  justified, 
which  we  cannot  be  but  by  the  imputation  of  it  to  us.  I  have 
met  with  nothing  that  had  the  appearance  of  any  sobriety  for 
the  eluding  of  this  express  testimony,  but  only,  that  by  the 
obedience  of  Chriist,  his  death  and  sufferings  are  intended, 
wherein  he  was  obedient  to  God;  as  the  Apostle  says,  he  was 
"obedient  unto  death;  the  death  of  the  cross,"  Phil.  ii.  S.  But 
yet  there  is  herein  no  colour  of  probability.  For,  (1)  It  is  ac- 
knowledged that  there  was  such  a  near  conjunction  and  alli- 
ance between  the  obedience  of  Christ,  and  his  sufferings,  that 
though  they  may  be  distinguished,  yet  can  they  not  be  sepa- 
rated. He  suffered  in  the  whole  course  of  his  obedience,  from 
the  womb  to  the  cross;  and  he  obeyed  in  all  his  sufferings 
to  the  last  moment  wherein  he  expired.  But  yet  are  they  really 


310      THE    IMPUTATION   OF  THE    OBEDIENCE   OF   CHRIST,    ETC. 

things  distinct,  as  we  have  proved;  and  they  were  so  in  him, 
who  "learned  obedience  by  the  things  that  he  suffered,"  Heb. 
V.  8.  (2)  In  this  place  vTtaxorj,  obedience,  ver.  19;  and  Stxatu-^a, 
righteousness,  ver.  IS,  are  the  same.  "  By  the  righteousness  of 
one,"  and  "  by  the  obedience  of  one,"  are  the  same.  But  suffer- 
ing, as  suffering,  is  not  righteousness.  For  if  it  w^e,  then  every 
one  that  suffers  what  is  due  to  him,  should  bS' Wghteous,  and 
so  be  justified,  even  the  devil  himself.  (3)  The  righteousness 
and  obedience  here  intended,  are  opposed  to  "  the  offence,"  but 
the  offence  intended  was  an  actual  transgression  of  the  law;  so 
is  rtaparttcj^a,  a  fall  froni  or  a  fall  in  the  course  of  obedience. 
Wherefore  the  Stxatco^uaor  righteousness  must  be  an  actual  obe- 
dience to  the  commands  of  the  law,  or  the  force  of  the  Apostle's 
reasoning  and  antithesis  cannot  be  understood.  (4)  Particularly 
it  is  such  an  obedience  as  is  opposed  to  the  disobedience  of 
Adam.  "  One  man's  disobedience,"  "  one  man's  obedience." 
But  the  disobedience  of  Adam  was  an  actual  transgression  of 
the  law;  and  therefore  the  obedience  of  Christ  here  intended, 
was  his  active  obedience  to  the  law;  which  is  what  we  plead 
for.  And  I  shall  not  at  present  further  pursue  the  argument, 
because  the  force  of  it  in  the  confirmation  of  the  truth  contend- 
ed for,  will  be  included  in  those  that  follow. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  NATURE  OF  JUSTIFICATION    PROVED  FROM    THE    DIFFERENCE  OF    THE 

COVENANTS. 

That  which  we  plead  in  tlie  third  place  to  our  purpose,  is  the 
difference  between  the  two  covenants.  And  herein  it  may  be 
observed: 

1.  That  by  the  two  covenants  I  understand  those  which 
were  absolutely  given  to  the  whole  church,  and  were  all  to 
bring  it  to  a  complete  and  perfect  state;  that  is  the  covenant 
of  works,  or  the  law  of  our  creation  as  it  was  given  to  us,  with 
promises  and  threatenings,  or  rewards  and  punishments  an- 
nexed to  it:  and  the  covenant  of  grace  revealed  and  proposed 
in  the  first  promise.  As  to  the  covenant  of  Sinai,  and  the  New 
Testament  as  actually  confirmed  in  the  death  of  Christ,  with 


THE     NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    TROVED.  311 

all  the  spiritual  privileges  thence  arising,  and  the  differences 
between  them,  they  belong  not  to  our  present  argument. 

2.  The  whole  entire  nature  of  the  covenant  of  works  con- 
sisted in  this;  that  upon  our  personal  obedience,  according  to 
the  law  and  rule  of  it,  we  should  be  accepted  with  God,  and 
rewarded  with  him.  Herein  the  essence  of  it  consisted.  And 
whatever  covenant  proceeds  on  these  terms,  or  has  the  nature 
of  them  in  it,  however  it  may  be  varied,  with  additions  or  al- 
terations, it  is  the  same  covenant  still,  and  not  another.  As  in 
the  renovation  of  the  promise  wherein  the  essence  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  was  contained,  God  did  ofitimes  make  other  ad- 
ditions to  it,  as  to  Abraham  and  David;  yet  was  it  still  the 
same  covenant  for  the  substance  of  it,  and  not  another;  so. 
whatever  variations  may  be  made  in,  or  additions  to  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  first  covenant,  so  long  as  this  rule  is  retained, 
"Do  this  and  live;"  it  is  still  the  same  covenant,  for  the  sub- 
stance and  essence  of  it. 

3.  Hence  two  things  belonged  to  this  covenant.  (1)  That 
all  things  were  transacted  immediately  between  God  and  man. 
There  was  no  mediator  hi  it,  no  one  to  undertake  any  thing, 
either  on  the  part  of  Grod  or  man,  between  them.  For  the 
whole  depending  on  every  one's  personal  obedience,  there  was 
no  place  for  a  mediator.  (2)  That  nothing  but  perfect  sinless 
obedience  would  be  accepted  with  God,  or  preserve  the  cove- 
nant in  its  primitive  state  and  condition.  There  was  nothing 
in  it  as  to  pardon  of  sin,  no  provision  for  any  defect  in  personal 
obedience. 

4.  Wherefore  this  covenant  being  once  established  between 
God  and  man,  there  could  be  no  new  covenant  made  unless 
the  essential  form  of  it  were  of  another  nature;  namely,  that 
our  own  personal  obedience  be  not  the  rule  and  cause  of  our 
acceptance  and  justification  before  God.  For  whilst  this  is  so, 
as  was  before  observed,  the  covenant  is  still  the  same;  how- 
ever the  dispensation  of  it  may  be  reformed  or  reduced,  to  suit 
our  present  state  and  condition.  What  grace  soever  might  be 
introduced  into  it,  that  could  not  be  so,  which  excluded  all 
works  from  being  the  cause  of  our  justification.  But  if  a  new 
covenant  be  made,  such  grace  must  be  provided  as  is  abso- 
lutely inconsistent  with  any  works  of  ours,  as  to  the  first  ends 
of  the  covenant,  as  the  Apostle  declares,  Rom.  xi.  (i. 

5.  Wherefore  the  covenant  of  grace,  supposing  it  a  new, 
real,  absolute  covenant,  and  not  a  reformation  of  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  old,  or  a  reduction  of  it  to  the  use  of  our  present 


312  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    PROVED. 

condition  (as  some  imagine  it  to  be)  must  differ  in  the  essence, 
substance,  and  nature  of  it  from  that  first  covenant  of  works. 
And  this  it  cannot  do,  if  we  are  to  be  justified  before  God  on 
our  personal  obedience,  wherein  the  essence  of  the  first  cove- 
nant consisted.  If  then  the  righteousness  wherewith  we  are 
justified  before  God,  be  our  own,  our  own  personal  righteous- 
ness; we  are  yet  under  the  first  covenant,  and  no  other. 

6.  But  things  in  the  new  covenant  are  indeed  quite  other- 
wise. For  (1)  it  is  of  grace,  which  wholly  excludes  works; 
that  is,  so  of  grace,  that  our  own  works  are  not  the  means  of 
justification  before  God;  as  in  the  places  before  alleged.  (2)  It 
has  a  mediator  and  surety,  which  is  built  alone  on  this  suppo- 
sition, that  what  we  cannot  do  in  ourselves  which  was  origi- 
nally required  of  us,  and  what  the  law  of  the  first  covenant 
cannot  enable  us  to  perform,  that  should  be  performed  for  us, 
by  our  mediator  and  surety.  And  if  this  be  not  included  in 
the  very  first  notion  of  a  mediator  and  surety,  yet  it  is  in  that 
of  a  mediator  or  surety  who  voluntarily  interposes  himself  upon 
an  open  acknowledgment,  that  those  for  whom  he  undertakes, 
were  utterly  insufficient  to  perform  wliat  was  required  of  them : 
on  which  supposition  all  the  truth  of  the  Scripture  depends. 
It  is  one  of  the  very  first  notions  of  Christianity,  that  the  Lord 
Christ  was  "  given  to  us,"  '•  born  to  us,"  that  he  came  as  a 
"mediator,"  to  do  for  us  what  we  could  not  do  for  ourselves, 
and  not  merely  to  suffer  what  we  had  deserved.  And  here 
instead  of  our  own  righteousness,  we  have  the  righteousness 
of  God;  instead  of  being  righteous  in  ourselves  before  God,  he 
is  "  the  Lord  our  righteousness."  And  nothing  but  a  right- 
eousness of  another  kind  and  nature,  to  justification  before 
God,  could  constitute  another  covenant.  Wherefore  the  right- 
eousness whereby  we  are  justified,  is  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  imputed  to  us,  or  we  are  still  under  the  law,  under  the 
covenant  of  works. 

It  will  be  said  that  our  personal  obedience  is  by  none  assert- 
ed to  be  the  righteousness  wherewith  we  are  justified  before 
God,  in  the  same  manner  as  it  was  under  the  covenant  of 
works.  But  the  argument  speaks  not  as  to  the  manner  or 
way  whereby  it  is  so;  but  to  the  thing  itself  If  it  be  so  in 
any  way  or  manner  under  what  qualifications  soever,  we  are 
under  that  covenant  still.  If  it  be  of  works  any  way,  it  is  not 
of  grace  at  all.  But  it  is  added,  that  the  differences  are  such 
as  are  sufficient  to  constitute  covenants  effectually  distinct.  As 
(1)  Perfect,  sinless  obedience  was  required  in  the  first  cove- 


THE    EXCLUSION    OF    ALL    SORTS    OF    WORKS,    ETC.  313 

nant;  but  in  the  new,  that  which  is  imperfect  and  accompa- 
nied with  many  sins  and  failings,  is  accepted.  Jlnswer.  This 
is  gratis  dictum,  and  begs  the  question.  No  righteousness  to 
justification  before  God,  is  or  can  be  accepted,  but  what  is  per- 
fect. (2)  Grace  is  the  original  fountain  and  cause  of  all  our 
acceptance  before  God  in  the  new  covenant.  Jinswer.  It  was 
so  also  in  the  old.  The  creation  of  man  in  original  righteous- 
ness was  an  effect  of  divine  grace,  benignity,  and  goodness. 
And  the  reward  of  eternal  life  in  the  enjoyment  of  God,  was 
of  mere  sovereign  grace:  yet  what  was  then  of  works,  was  not 
of  grace;  no  more  is  it  at  present.  (3)  There  would  then  have 
been  merit  of  works,  which  is  now  excluded.  Answer.  Such 
a  merit  as  arises  from  an  equality  and  proportion  between 
works  and  reward,  by  the  rule  of  commutative  justice,  would, 
not  have  been  in  the  works  of  the  first  covenant;  and  in  no 
other  sense  is  it  now  rejected  by  them  that  oppose  the  imputa- 
tion of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  (4)  All  is  now  resolved 
into  the  merit  of  Christ,  upon  the  account  whereof  alone,  our 
own  personal  righteousness  is  accepted  before  God  to  our  jus- 
tification. Answer.  The  question  is  not  on  what  account,  nor 
for  what  reason  it  is  so  accepted,  but  whether  it  be  or  not; 
seeing  its  so  being  is  effectually  constitutive  of  a  covenant  of 
works. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  EXCLUSION  OF  ALL  SORTS  OF  WORKS  FROM  AN  INTEREST  IN  JUS- 
TIFICATION. WHAT  INTENDED  BY  THE  LAW,  AND  THE  WORKS  OF 
IT,    IN   THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL. 

We  shall  take  our  fourth  argument  from  the  express  exclusion 
of  all  works  of  what  sort  soever  from  our  justification  before 
God.  For  this  alone  is  that  which  we  plead;  namely,  that  no 
acts  or  works  of  our  own,  are  the  causes  or  conditions  of  our 
justification;  but  that  the  whole  of  it  is  resolved  into  the  free 
grace  of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  mediator  and  surety 
of  the  covenant.  To  this  purpose  the  Scripture  speaks  express- 
ly, Rom.  iii.  28.  "Therefore  we  conclude,  that  a  man  is  justi- 
fied by  faith,  without  the  works  of  the  law."  Rom.  iv.  5;  "  But 
unto  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth 

27 


314  WHAT    INTENDED    BY  THE   LAW,    AND    THE 

the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness."  Rom.  xi.  6. 
"  If  it  be  of  grace,  then  is  it  not  of  works."  Gal.  ii.  1 6.  "  Know- 
ing that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by 
the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  even  we  have  believed  in  Jesus  Christ, 
that  we  might  be  justified  by  the  faith  of  Christ,  and  not  by  the 
works  of  the  law,  for  by  the  works  of  the  law,  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified."  Eph.  ii.  S,  9.  "  For  by  grace  ye  are  saved  through 
faith,  not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast."  Tit.  iii.  5. 
"Not  by  works  of  righteousness,  which  we  have  done,  but 
according  unto  his  mercy  he  hath  saved  us," 
,  These  and  the  like  testimonies  are  express,  and  in  positive 
terms  assert  all  that  we  contend  for.  And  I  am  persuaded,  that 
no  unprejudiced  person,  whose  mind  is  not  prepossessed  with 
notions  and  distinctions,  whereof  not  the  least  title  is  offered  to 
them  from  the  texts  mentioned,  nor  elsewhere,  can  but  judge 
that  the  law  in  every  sense  of  it,  and  all  sorts  of  works  what- 
ever, that  at  any  time,  or  by  any  means,  sinners  or  believers  do 
or  can  perform,  are,  not  in  this  or  that  sense,  but  every  way 
and  in  all  senses,  excluded  from  our  justification  before  God. 
And  if  it  be  so,  it  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone  that  we 
must  betake  ourselves  to,  or  this  matter  must  cease  for  ever. 
And  this  inference  the  Apostle  himself  makes  from  one  of  the 
testimonies  before  mentioned,  namely  that  of  Gal.  ii.  16;  for  he 
adds  upon  it;  "I  through  the  law  am  dead  to  the  law,  that  I 
might  live  unto  God.  I  am  crucified  with  Christ;  nevertheless 
I  live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me,  and  the  life  which  I 
now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who 
loved  me  and  gave  himself  for  me.  I  do  not  frustrate  the  grace 
of  God;  for  if  righteousness  come  by  the  law  then  is  Christ 
dead  in  vain." 

Our  adversaries  are  extremely  divided  amongst  themselves, 
and  can  come  to  no  consistency,  as  to  the  sense  and  meaning  of 
the  Apostle  in  these  assertions;  for  what  is  proper  and  obvious 
to  the  understanding  of  all  men,  especially  from  the  opposition 
that  is  made  between  the  law  and  works  on  tlie  one  hand,  and 
faith,  grace,  and  Christ  on  the  other,  (which  are  opposed  as  in- 
consistent in  this  matter  of  our  justification)  they  will  not  allow, 
nor  can  do  so  without  the  ruin  of  the  opinions  they  plead  for. 
Wherefore  their  various  conjectures  shall  be  examined,  as  well 
to  show  their  inconsistency  among  themselves,  by  whom  the 
truth  is  opposed,  as  to  confirm  our  present  argument. 

1.  Some  say  it  is  the  ceremonial  law  alone,  and  the  works 
of  it  that  are  intended;  or  the  law  as  given  to  JNIoses  on  Mount 


MORKS    OF    IT,    IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL.  315 

Sinai,  containing  that  entire  covenant  that  was  afterwards  to 
be  abolished.  Tliis  was  of  old  the  common  opinion  of  the 
schoolmen,  though  it  be  now  generally  exploded.  And  the 
opinion  lately  contended  for,  that  the  Apostle  Paul  excludes 
justification  from  the  works  of  the  law,  not  because  no  man 
can  yield  that  perfect  obedience  which  the  law  requires,  or  ex- 
cludes works  absolutely  perfect,  and  sinless  obedience;  but  be- 
cause the  law  itself,  which  he  intends,  could  not  justify  any  by 
the  observation  of  it,  is  nothing  but  the  renovation  of  this  ob- 
solete notion,  that  it  is  the  ceremonial  law  only,  or  the  law 
given  on  Mount  Sinai,  abstracted  from  the  grace  of  the  pro- 
mise, which  could  not  justify  any,  in  the  observation  of  its  rites 
and  commands.  But  of  all  other  conjectures,  this  is  the  most 
impertinent  and  contradictory  to  the  design  of  the  Apostle,  and 
is  therefore  rejected  by  Bellarmine  himself.  For  the  Apostle 
treats  of  that  law,  the  doers  of  which  shall  be  justified,  Rom. 
ii.  13.  And  the  authors  of  this  opinion  would  have  it  to  be  a 
law  that  can  justify  none  of  them  that  do  it.  That  law  he  in- 
tends whereby  is  the  knowledge  of  sin;  for  he  gives  this  reason, 
why  we  cannot  be  justified  by  the  works  of  it,  namely,  because 
by  it,  is  the  knowledge  of  sin,  iii.  20.  And  by  what  law  is  the 
knowledge  of  sin,  he  expressly  declares,  where  he  affirms,  that 
"he  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  thou  shalt 
not  covet,"  vii.  7;  which  is  the  moral  law  alone.  That  law  he 
designs,  which  stops  the  mouth  of  all  sinners,  and  makes  all 
the  world  obnoxious  to  the  judgment  of  God,  iii.  19;  which  no 
law  can  do  but  the  law  written  in  the  heart  of  men  at  their 
creation,  ii.  14,  15;  that  law  which  if  a  man  do  the  works  of 
it,  he  shall  live  in  them;  Gal.  iii.  12;  Rom.  x.  5;  and  which 
brings  all  men  under  the  curse  for  sin.  Gal.  iii.  10;  the  law  that 
is  established  by  faith  and  not  made  void;  Rom.  iii.  31;  which 
the  ceremonial  law  is  not,  nor  the  covenant  of  Sinai;  the  law 
whose  righteousness  is  to  be  fulfilled  in  us;  Rom.  viii.  4.  And 
the  instance  which  the  Apostle  gives  of  justification  without  the 
works  of  that  law  which  he  intends,  namely  that  of  Abraham, 
was  some  himdreds  of  years  before  the  giving  of  the  ceremo- 
nial law.  Neither  yet  do  I  say  that  the  ceremonial  law  and 
tlie  works  of  it  are  excluded  from  the  intention  of  the  Apostle; 
for  when  that  law  was  given,  the  observation  of  it  was  an  espe- 
cial instance  of  that  obedience  we  owed  to  the  first  table  of  the 
decalogue;  and  the  exclusion  of  the  works  thereof  from  our 
justification;  in  as  much  as  the  performance  of  them  was  part 
of  that  moral  obedience  which  we  owed  to  God,  is  exclusive 


316  WHAT   INTENDED    BY    THE    LAW,    AND    THE 

of  all  other  works  also.  But  that  it  is  alone  here  intended,  or 
that  law  which  could  never  justify  any  by  its  observation,  al- 
though it  was  observed  in  due  manner,  is  a  fond  imagination, 
and  contradictory  to  the  express  assertion  of  tiie  Apostle.  And 
whatever  is  pretended  to  the  contrary,  this  opinion  is  expressly 
rejected  by  Augustine.*  "Lest  any  one  should  think,  that  the 
Apostle  had  said  that  no  one  was  justified  by  that  law,  which, 
under  the  ancient  sacraments,  contains  many  figurative  pre- 
cepts, whence  also  is  that  circumcision  of  the  flesh,  lie  imme- 
diately subjoins  what  law  he  means;  and  adds, '  By  the  law  is 
the  knowledge  of  sin.'"  And  to  the  same  purpose  he  speaks 
again. t  "  Not  only  those  works  of  the  law  contained  in  the 
ancient  sacraments,  which,  since  the  revelation  of  the  New 
Testament  are  not  observed  by  Christians, such  as  circumcision, 
the  ceremonial  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  abstinence  from  par- 
ticular meats,  the  offering  of  animals  in  sacrifice,  the  new 
moons,  unleavened  bread,  &c.;  but  also  the  command  of  the 
law, 'Thou  shalt  not  covet,'  which  every  Christian  acknow- 
ledges to  be  universally  binding,  do  not  justify  a  man,  unless 
through  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  grace  of  God  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

2.  Some  say  the  Apostle  only  excludes  the  perfect  works  re- 
quired by  the  law  of  innocency,  which  is  a  sense  diametrically 
opposite  to  that  foregoing.  But  this  best  pleases  the  Socinians.J 
"  Paul  in  this  passage  is  treating  about  perfect  works,  and  there- 
fore he  adds,  '  without  the  works  of  the  law,'  to  show  that  he 

*  Ne  quisquam  putaret  liic  Apostoium  dixissc  ea  lege  neminem  justificari,  qua; 
in  sacranicntis  vetcribus  multa  continent  figurata  prBeccpta,  unde  etiam  est  ista 
circumcisio  carnis,  continuo  subjtingit,  quani  dixerit  legem  ct  addit ;  per  legem 
cognitio  peccati,  lib.  dc  Spirit,  et  Liter,  cap.  8. 

t  Non  solum  ilia  opera  Icgis  quae  sunt  in  vetcribus  sacramentis,  et  nunc  revelato 
Testamento  novo  non  obscrvantur  a  Ciiristianis,  sicut  est  circumcisio  prseputii,  et 
sabbali  carnalis  vacatio,  et  a  quibusdam  eseis  abstinentia,  ct  peeorum  in  sacrifieiis 
immolatio,  et  neomenia  et  azymuni,  et  ctetera  htijusmodi,  verum  etiam  illud  quod 
in  lege  dictum  est,  non  concupisces,  quod  ubique  et  Christianus  nullus  ambigit 
esse  dicendum,  non  justificat  liominem,  nisi  per  fideni  Jesu  Christi  et  gratiam  JJci 
per  Jcsum  Christum  dominum  nostrum.  Epist.  200. 

t  Paulus  agit  dc  operibus  et  perfectis  in  hoc  dicto,  ideo  eniin  adjccit,  sine  ope- 
ribus  legis,  ut  indicaretur  loqui  eum  de  operibus  a  lege  requisitis,  et  sic  de  perpe- 
tua  ct  perfectissima  divinoruin  prseceptorum  obcdicntia  sicut  lex  requirit.  Cum 
autem  talem  obedientiam  qualem  lex  requirit  ncino  prcestare  possit,  ideo  subjecit 
Apostolus  nos  justificaii  fide,  id  est,  fiducia  ct  obedientia  ea  quantum  quisque 
prcBstare  potest,  et  quotidic  quam  maximum  pr;estare  studct,  et  connilitur.  Sine 
operibus  legis,  id  est,  etsi  interim  perfecte  totam  legem  sicut  dcbebat  complcre 
nequit. — Socinus. 


WORKS    OF    IT,    IN   THE     EPISTLES    OF    PAUL.  317 

is  speaking  of  works  required  by  the  law,  and  consequently,  of 
that  perpetual  and  perfect  observance  of  the  divine  commands 
which  the  law  requires.  But  as  no  man  can  render  such  an 
obedience  as  the  law  demands,  therefore  the  Apostle  adds  that 
we  are  'justified  by  faith/  that  is  by  such  a  confidence  and 
obedience  as  every  one  can  render,  and  daily  labours  and 
strives  as  much  as  in  him  lies  to  render."  But  (1)  We  have 
herein  the  whole  granted  of  what  we  plead  for;  namely,  that 
it  is  the  moral  indispensable  law  of  God  that  is  intended  by  the 
Apostle;  and  that  by  the  works  of  it  no  man  can  be  justified, 
yea,  that  all  the  works  of  it  are  excluded  from  our  justification; 
for  it  is,  saith  the  Apostle,  "  without  works."  The  works  of 
this  law  being  performed  according' to  it,  will  justify  them  that 
perform  them,  as  he  affirms,  Rom.  ii.  13.  and  the  Scripture  else- 
where witnesses,  that  "he  that  doth  them,  shall  live  in  them:" 
but  because  this  can  never  be  done  by  any  sinner,  therefore  all 
consideration  of  them  is  excluded  from  our  justification.  (2)  It 
is  a  wild  imagination  that  the, -dispute  of  the  Apostle  is  to  this 
purpose,  that  the  perfect  works  of  the  law  will  not  justify  us, 
but  imperfect  works,  which  answer  not  the  law,  will  do  so,  (3) 
Granting  the  law  intended,  to  be  the  moral  law  of  God,  the  law 
of  our  creation,  there  is  no  such  distinction  intimated  in  the 
least  by  the  Apostle,  that  we  are  not  justified  by  the  perfect 
works  of  it  which  we  cannot  perform,  but  by  some  imperfect 
works  that  we  can  i)erform,  and  labour  so  to  do.  Nothing 
is  more  foreign  to  the  design  and  express  words  of  his 
whole  discourse.  (4)  The  evasion  which  they  betake  them- 
selves to,  that  the  Apostle  opposes  justification  by  faith  to  that 
of  works  which  he  excludes,  is  altogether  vain  in  this  sense. 
For  they  would  have  this  faith  to  be  our  obedience  to  the  di- 
vine commands  in  that  imperfect  manner  which  we  can  attain 
to.  For  when  the  Apostle  has  excluded  all  such  justification 
by  the  law  and  the  works  thereof,  he  does  not  advance  in  op- 
position to  them  and  in  their  room,  our  own  faith  and  obedience; 
but  adds,  "being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the  re- 
demption that  is  in  Jesus  Christ,  whom  God  has  set  forth  to  be 
a  propitiation  througlr  faith  in  his  blood." 

3.  Some  of  late  among  ourselves,  and'-they  want  not  them 
who  have  gone  before  them,  aflirm  that  the  works  wliich  the 
Apostle  excludes  from  justification,  are  only  the  outward  works 
of  the  law,  performed  without  an  inward  principle  of  faith, 
fear,  or  the  love  of  God.  Servile  works  attended  to  from  a 
respect  to  the  threatening  of  the  law,  are  those  which  will  nat 


318  WHAT    INTENDED    BY    THE    LAW,   AND    THE 

justify  us.  But  this  opinion  is  not  onlj'-  false  but  impious.  For 
(1)  The  Apostle  excludes  the  works  of  Abraham  which  were 
not  such  outward  servile  works  as  are  imagined.  (2)  The 
works  excluded  are  those  which  the  law  requires;  and  "  the 
law  is  holy,  just  and  good."  But  a  law  that  requires  only  out- 
ward works  without  internal  love  to  God,  is  neither  holy,  just 
nor  good.  (3)  The  law  condenms  all  such  works  as  are  sepa- 
rated from  the  internal  principle  of  faiih,  fear  and  love,  for  it 
requires  that  in  all  our  obedience  we  should  love  the  Lord  our 
God  with  all  our  hearts.  And  the  Apostle  says  not,  that  we 
are  not  justified  by  the  works  which  the  law  condemns,  but  by 
them  which  the  law  commands.  (4)  It  is  highly  reflecting  on 
the  honour  of  God,  that  lie  whose  divine  prerogative  it  is  to 
know  the  hearts  of  men  alone,  and  who,  therefore  regards  them 
alone  in  all  the  duties  of  their  obedience,  should  give  a  law  re- 
quiring outward  servile  works  only;  for  if  the  law  intended 
require  more,  then  are  not  those  the  only  works  excluded. 

4.  Some  say  in  general  it  is  the  Jewish  law  that  is  intended, 
and  think  thereby  to  cast  off  the  whole  difficulty.  But  if  by 
the  Jewish  law  they  intend  only  the  ceremonial  law,  or  the  law 
absolutely  as  given  by  JMoses,  we  have  already  showed  the 
vanity  of  that  pretence.  But  if  they  mean  thereby  the  whole 
law  or  rule  of  obedience  given  to  the  cliurch  of  Israel  under 
the  Old  Testament,  they  express  much  of  the  truth;  it  may  be 
more  than  they  designed. 

5.  Some  say  that  it  is  works,  with  a  conceit  of  merit,  that 
makes  the  reward  to  be  of  debt,  and  not  of  grace,  that  are  ex- 
cluded by  the  Apostle.  But  no  such  distinction  appears  in  the 
text  or  context.  For,  (1)  The  Apostle  excludes  all  works  of 
the  law,  that  is,  that  tlie  law  requires  of  us  in  a  way  of  obe- 
dience, be  they  of  what  sort  they  will.  (2)  The  law  requires 
no  works  with  a  conceit  of  merit.  (3)  Works  of  the  law  origi- 
nally, included  no  merit,  as  that  which  arises  from  the  propor- 
tion of  one  thing  to  another  in  the  balance  of  justice,  and  in 
that  sense  only  is  it  rejected  by  those  who  plead  for  an  inte- 
rest of  works  in  justification.  (4)  The  merit  which  the  Apostle 
excludes,  is  that  which  is  inseparable  from  works,  so  that  it 
cannot  be  excluded,  unless  the  works  themselves  be  so.  And 
to  their  merit  two  things  concur:  (1)  A  comparative  boasting, 
that  is,  not  absolutely  in  the  sight  of  God,  which  follows  the 
merilum  ex  condigno,  which  some  poor  sinful  mortals  have 
fancied  in  their  works;  but  that  which  gives  one  man  a  ])re- 
ference  above  another  in  the  obtaining  of  justification,  which 


WORKS     OF    IT,    IN    THE    EPISTLES     OF     PAUL.  3 19 

grace  will  not  allow.  Rom.  iv.  2.  (2)  That  the  reward  be  not 
absolutely  of  grace,  but  that  respect  be  had  therein  to  works, 
which  makes  it  so  far  to  be  of  debt;  not  out  of  an  internal  con- 
dignity  which  would  not  have  been  under  the  law  of  creation, 
but  out  of  some  congruity  with  respect  to  the  promise  of  God, 
Rom.  V.  4.  In  these  two  regards  merit  is  inseparable  from 
works;  and  the  Holy  Ghost  utterly  to  exclude  it,  excludes  all 
works  from  which  it  is  inseparable,  as  it  is  from  all.  Where- 
fore (5)  the  Apostle  speaks  not  one  word  about  the  exclusion 
of  the  merit  of  works  only ;  but  he  excludes  all  works  whatever, 
and  that  by  this  argument,  that  the  admission  of  them,  would 
necessarily  introduce  merit  in  the  sense  described,  which  is 
inconsistent  with  grace.  And  although  some  think  that  they 
are  injuriously  dealt  with,  when  they  are  charged  with  main- 
taining merit  in  their  asserting  the  influence  of  our  works  upon 
our  justification;  yet  those  of  ihem  who  best  understand  them- 
selves, and  the  controversy  itself,  are  not  so  averse  from  some 
kind  of  merit,  as  knowing  that  it  is  inseparable  from  works. 

6.  Some  contend  that  the  Apostle  excludes  only  works 
wrought  before  believing,  in  the  strength  of  our  own  wills  and 
natural  abilities,  without  the  aid  of  grace.  Works  they  sup- 
pose required  by  the  law  are  such  as  we  perform  by  the  direc- 
tion and  command  of  the  law,  alone.  ]But  the  law  of  faith 
requires  works  in  the  strength  of  the  supplies  of  grace  which 
are  not  excluded.  This  is  that  which  the  most  learned  and 
judicious  of  the  church  of  Rome  now  generally  betake  them- 
selves to.  Those  who  amongst  us  plead  for  works  in  our  jus- 
tification, use  many  distinctions  to  explain  their  minds,  and 
free  their  opinion  from  a  coincidence  with  that  of  the  Papists; 
yet,  they  deny  the  name  of  merit,  and  the  thing  itself  in  the 
sense  of  the  church  of  Rome,  as  it  is  renounced  likewise  by  all 
the  Socinians.  Wherefore  they  make  use  of  the  preceding 
evasion,  that  merit  is  excluded  by  the  Apostle,  and  works  only 
as  they  are  meritorious,  although  the  Apostle's  plain  argument 
be  that  they  are  excluded  because  such  a  merit  as  is  incon- 
sistent with  grace,  is  inseparable  from  their  admission. 

But  the  Roman  church  cannot  so  part  with  merit.  Where- 
fore they  are  to  find  out  a  sort  of  works  to  be  excluded  only, 
which  they  are  content  to  part  with  as  not  meritorious.  Such 
are  those  before  described,  wrought  as  they  say  before  believ- 
ing, and  without  the  aids  of  grace;  and  such  they  say,  are  all 
the  works  of  the  law.  And  this  they  do  with  some  more  mo- 
desty and  sobriety,  than  those  amongst  us,  who  would  have 


320  WHAT    INTENDED    BY    THE    LAW,    AND    THE 

only  external  works,  and  observances  to  be  intended.     For 
they  grant  that  sundry  internal  works,  as  those  of  attrition,  sor- 
row for  sin,  and  the  like,  are  of  this  nature.     But  the  works 
of  the  law  it  is  they  say  that  are  excluded.     But  this  whole 
plea,  and  all  the  sophisms  wherewith  it  is  countenanced,  have 
been  so  discussed  and  defeated  by  Protestant   writers  of  all 
sorts  against  Bellarmine  and  others,  that  it  is  needless  to  repeat 
the  same  things,  or  to  add  any  thing  to  them.     And  the  false- 
hood of  it  will  be  sufficiently  evinced,  in  what  we  shall  imme- 
diately prove  concerning  the  law  and  works  intended  by  the 
Apostle.     However  the   heads  of  the  demonstration   of  the 
truth  to  the  contrary  may  be  touched  on.     And  (1)  the  Apostle 
excludes  all  works  without  distinction  or  exception.     And  we 
are  not  to  distinguish  where  the  law  does  not  distinguish  before 
us.     (2)  All  the  works  of  the  law  are  excluded,  therefore  all 
works  wrought  after  believing  by  the  aids  of  grace,  are  ex- 
cluded.    For  they  are  all  required  by  the  law.    See  Psal,  cxix. 
35.  Rom.  vii.  22.     Works  not  required  by  the  law,  are  no  less 
an  abomination  to  God,  than  sins  against  the  law.     (3)  The 
works  of  believers  after  conversion,  performed  by  the  aids  of 
grace,  are  expressly  excluded  by  the  Apostle.     So  are  those 
of  Abraham  after  he  had  been  a  believer  many  years,  and 
abounded  in  them  to  the  praise  of  God.     So  he  excludes  his 
own  works  after  his  conversion,  Gal.  ii.  16.  1  Cor.  iv.  4.  Phil. 
iii.  9.     And  so  he  excludes  the  works  of  all  other   believers; 
Ephes.  ii.  9,  10.     (4)  All  works  are  excluded  that  might  give 
countenance  to  boasting,  Rom.  iv.  2;  iii.  17.  Eph.  ii.  9.  1  Cor. 
i.  29 — 31.     But  this  is  done  more  by  the  good  works  of  re- 
generate persons,  than  by  any  works  of  unbelievers.     (5)  The 
law  requires  faith  and  love  in  all  oiu'  works,  and  therefore  if 
all  the  works  of  the  law  be  excluded,  the  best  works  of  be- 
lievers are  so.     (6)  All  works  are  excluded  which  are  opposed 
to  grace  working  freely  in  our  justification.  But  this  all  works 
whatever  are,  Rom,,  xi.  6.    (7)  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
the   Apostle   excludes  from  our  justification  all  those  works 
which  the  false  teachers  pressed  as  necessary  thereto.     But 
they  urged  the  necessity  of  the  works  of  believers,  and  those 
who   were  by  grace   already  converted  to  God.     For  those 
upon  whom  they  pressed  them  to  this  end,  were  already  ac- 
tually so.     (S)  Tliey  are  good  works  that  the  Apostle  excludes 
from  our  justification.     For  there  can  be  no  pretence  of  justi- 
fication by  those  works  that  are  not  good,  or  which  have  not 
all  things  essentially  requisite  to  make  tliem  so.     But  such  are 


WORKS    OF    IT,    IN   THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL.  321 

all  the  works  of  unbelievers,  performed  without  the  aids  of 
grace;  they  are  not  good,  nor  as  such  accepted  with  God;  but 
want  what  is  essentially  requisite  to  the  constitution  of  good 
works.  And  it  is  ridiculous  to  think  that  the  Apostle  disputes 
about  the  exclusion  of  such  works  from  our  justification,  as 
no  man  in  his  wits  would  think  to  have  any  place  therein. 
(9)  The  reason  why  no  man  can  be  justified  by  the  law,  is  be- 
cause no  man  can  yield  perfect  obedience  thereto.  For  by 
perfect  obedience  the  law  will  justify,  Rom.  ii.  13;  x.  5.  Where- 
fore all  works  are  excluded  that  are  not  absolutely  perfect. 
But  this  the  best  works  of  believers  are  not;  as  we  have 
proved  before.  (10)  If  there  be  a  reserve  for  the  works  of 
believers  performed  by  the  aid  of  grace  in  our  justification,  it 
is,  that  either  they  may  be  con-causes  thereof,  or  be  indispen- 
sably subservient  to  those  things  that  are  so.  That  they  are 
con-causes  of  our  justification,  is  not  absolutely  affirmed; 
neither  can  it  be  said,  that  they  are  necessarily  subservient  to 
them  that  are  so.  They  are  not  so  to  the  efficient  cause  thereof, 
which  is  the  grace  and  favour  of  God  alone,  Rom.  iii.  24,  25; 
iv.  16.  Eph.  ii.  8,  9.  Rev.  i.  6.  Nor  are  they  so  to  the  meri- 
torious cause  of  it,  which  is  Christ  alone.  Acts  xiii.  38;  xxvi. 
IS.  1  Cor.  i.  30.  2  Cor.  v.  18 — 21;  nor  to  the  material  cause  of 
it;  which  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone;  Rom.  x,  3,4. 
Nor  are  they  so  to  faith  in  what  place  soever  it  be  stated.  For 
not  only  is  faith  only  mentioned,  wherever  we  are  taught  the 
way  how  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  derived  and  commu- 
nicated to  us,  without  any  intimation  of  the  conjunction  of 
works  with  it;  but  also,  as  to  our  justification  they  are  placed 
in  opposition  and  contradiction  one  to  the  other,  Rom.  iii.  28. 
And  sundry  other  things  are  pleadable  to  the  same  purpose. 

7.  Some  aflirm  that  the  Apostle  excludes  all  works  from  our 
first  justification,  but  not  from  the  second,  or  as  some  sj)eak,  the 
continuation  of  our  justification.  But  we  have  before  examined 
these  distinctions,  and  found  them  groundless. 

Evident  it  is  therefore,  that  men  put  themselves  into  an  un- 
certain, slippery  station,  where  they  know  not  what  to  fix  upon, 
nor  wherein  to  find  any  such  appearance  of  truth  as  to  give 
them  countenance  in  denying  the  plain  and  frequently  repeated 
assertion  of  the  Apostle. 

Wherefore  in  tlie  confirmation  of  the  present  argument,  I 
shall  more  particularly  inquire  into  what  it  is,  that  the  Apostle 
intends  by  the  law  and  works  whereof  he  treats.  For  as  to  our 
justification  whatever  they  are,  they  are  absolutely  and  uni- 


322  WHAT    INTENDED     BV    THE    LAW,     AND    THE 

versally  opposed  to  grace,  faith,  the  righteousness  of  God,  and 
the  blood  of  Christ,  as  those  which  are  ahogether  inconsistent 
with  them.  Neither  can  this  be  denied  or  questioned  by  any, 
seeing  it  is  the  plain  design  of  the  Apostle  to  evince  that  incon- 
sistency, 

1.  Wherefore  in  general,  it  is  evident  that  the  Apostle  by  the 
law  and  the  works  thereof  intended  what  the  Jews  with  whom 
he  had  to  do,  understood  by  the  law  and  their  own  whole  obe- 
dience thereto.  I  suppose  this  cannot  be  denied.  For  without 
a  concession  of  it,  there  is  nothing  proved  against  them,  nor 
are  they  in  any  thing  instructed  by  him.  Suppose  those  terms 
equivocal,  and  to  be  taken  in  one  sense  by  him,  and  by  them 
in  another,  and  nothing  can  be  rightly  concluded  from  what  is 
spoken  of  them.  Wherefore  the  meaning  of  these  terms  the 
laiu  and  ivorks,  the  Apostle  takes  for  granted  as  very  well 
known,  and  agreed  on  between  liimself  and  those  with  whom 
he  had  to  do. 

2.  The  Jews  by  the  law  intended  what  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament  meant  by  that  expression.  For  they  are  no- 
where blamed  for  any  false  notion  concerning  the  law,  or  that 
they  esteemed  any  thing  to  be  so,  but  what  was  so  indeed,  and 
what  was  so  called  in  the  Scripture.  Their  present  oral  law 
was  not  yet  hatched,  though  tlie  Pharisees  were  brooding  it. 

3.  The  law  under  the  Old  Testament,  immediately  refers  to 
the  law  given  at  iMount  Sinai,  nor  is  there  any  distinct  mention 
of  it  before.  This  is  commonly  called  the  law  absolutely;  but 
most  frequently  the  "law  of  God,"  the  "  law  of  the  Lord ;"  and 
sometimes  the  "law  of  Moses,"  because  of  his  especial  minis- 
try in  the  giving  of  it.  "  Remember  the  law  of  Moses  my  ser- 
vant, which  I  commanded  unto  him,"  Mai.  iv.  4.  And  this 
the  Jews  intended  by  the  law. 

4.  Of  the  law  so  given  at  Horeb,  there  was  a  distribution 
into  three  parts.  (1)  There  was  the  "  ten  words;"  Deut.  iv.  13; 
X.  4;  that  is,  the  ten  commandments  written  on  two  tables  of 
stone.  This  part  of  the  law  was  first  given;  was  the  founda- 
tion of  the  whole,  and  contained  that  perfect  obedience  which 
was  required  of  mankind  by  the  law  of  creation,  and  was  now 
received  into  the  church,  with  the  highest  attestations  of  its  in- 
dispensable obligation  to  obedience  or  punishment.  (2)  o'pn 
which  the  LXX  render  by  6txaiw/tara,  that  is  jura;  "  rights  or 
statutes;"  but  the  Latin  from  ihence  j ustificationes,  "justifica- 
tions," which  has  given  great  occasion  of  mistake  in  many  both 
ancient  and  modern  divines.     We  call  it  the  ceremonial  law. 


WORKS    OF    IT,    IX     THE    EPISTLES     OF    PAUL.  323 

The  Apostle  terms  this  part  of  the  law  disthictly  a'o^o?  ivtoxuv 
iv  Soyfiaao,  Ephes.  ii.  15.  "  The  law  of  commandments  contain- 
ed in  ordinances;"  that  is, consisting  in  a  multitude  of  arbitrary- 
commands.  (3)  a'Psz'D  wiiich  we  commonly  call  the  judicial 
law.  This  distribution  of  the  law  shuts  up  the  Old  Testament, 
asjt  is  used  in  places  innumerable  before,  only  the  nnai  ms'j;  the 
"  ten  words,"  is  expressed  by  the  general  word  ^•^'^n  the  law, 
Mai.  iv.  4. 

5.  These  being  the  parts  of  the  law  given  to  the  church  in 
Sinai,  the  whole  of  it  is  constantly  called  ''  the  law,"  that  is, 
the  instruction  (as  the  word  signifies)  that  God  gave  to  the 
church,  in  the  rule  of  obedience  which  he  prescribed  to  it.  This 
is  the  constant  signification  of  that  word  in  Scripture,  where  it 
is  taken  absolutely;  and  thereon  does  not  signify  precisely  the 
law  as  given  at  Horeb,  but  comprehends  with  it  all  the  revela- 
tions that  God  made  to  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  explanation 
and  confirmation  of  that  law,  in  rules,  motives,  directions  and 
enforcements  of  obedience. 

6.  Wherefore  "  the  law"  is  the  whole  rule  of  obedience  v/hich 
God  gave  to  the  church  under  the  Old  Testament,  with  all  the 
efficacy  wherewith  it  was  accompanied  by  the  ordinances  of 
God,  including  in  it  all  the  promises  andthreatenings,  that  might 
be  motives  to  the  obedience  tliat  God  required.  This  is  that 
which  God  and  the  church  called  the  law  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  which  the  Jews  so  called  with  whom  our  Apostle 
had  to  do.  That  which  we  call  the  moral  law  was  the  founda- 
tion of  the  whole;  and  those  parts  of  it  which  we  call  the  ju- 
dicial and  ceremonial  law,  were  peculiar  instances  of  the  obe- 
dience which  the  church  under  the  Old  Testament  was  obliged 
to,  in  the  especial  polity  and  divine  worship,  which  at  that 
season  were  necessary  to  it.  And  two  things  the  Scripture  tes- 
tifies to,  concerning  this  law. 

1.  That  it  was  a  perfect  complete  rule  of  all  that  internal, 
spiritual  and  moral  obedience  which  God  required  of  the 
church.  "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  convening  the  soul; 
the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise  the  simple," 
Psalm  xix.  7.  And  it  was  so  of  all  the  external  duties  of  obe- 
dience, for  matter  and  manner,  time  and  season;  that  in  both 
the  church  might  walk  "acceptably  before  God,"  Isa.  viii.  20. 
And  although  the  original  duties  of  the  moral  part  of  the  law 
are  often  preferred  before  the  particular  instances  of  obedience 
in  duties  of  outward  worship;  yet  the  whole  law  was  always 
the  whole  rule  of  all  the  obedience  internal  and  external  that 


324 


WHAT    INTENDED    BY  THE   LAW,    AND    THE 


God  required  of  the  church,  and  which  he  accepted  in  them 
that  behaved. 

2.  That  this  law,  this  rule  of  obedience  as  it  was  ordained 
of  God  to  be  the  instrument  of  his  rule  of  the  church,  and  by- 
virtue  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  to  whose  adminis- 
tration it  was  adapted,  and  which  its  introduction  on  Sinai  did 
not  disannul,  was  accotnpanied  with  a  power  and  efficacy  en- 
abling to  obedience.  The  law  itself  as  merely  preceptive  and 
commanding,  administered  no  power  or  ability  to  those  that 
were  under  its  authority  to  yield  obedience  to  it;  no  more  do 
the  mere  commands  of  the  gospel.  Moreover  under  the  Old 
Testament  it  enforced  obedience  on  the  minds  and  consciences 
of  men,  by  the  manner  of  its  first  delivery,  and  the  severity  of 
its  sanction,  so  as  to  fill  them  with  fear  and  bondage;  and  was 
besides  accompanied  with  such  burlhensome  rules  of  outward 
worship,  as  made  it  a  heavy  yoke  to  the  people.  But  as  it  was 
God's  doctrine,  teaching,  instruction,  in  all  acceptable  obedience 
to  himself,  and  was  adapted  to  the  covenant  of  Abraham,  it 
was  accompanied  with  an  administration  of  effectual  grace, 
procuring  and  promoting  obedience  in  the  church.  And  the 
law  is  not  to  be  looked  on  as  separated  from  those  aids  to  obe- 
dience, which  God  administered  under  the  Old  Testament, 
whose  effects  are  therefore  ascribed  to  the  law  itself.  See  Psal. 
i,  xix.  cxix. 

3.  This  being  the  law  in  the  sense  of  the  Apostle,  and  those 
with  whom  he  had  todo,our  next  inquiry  is,  what  was  their  sense 
of  works,  or  works  of  the  law  ?  And  I  say  it  is  plain  that  they 
intended  hereby,  the  universal  sincere  obedience  of  the  church 
to  God,  according  to  this  law.  And  other  works,  tiie  law  of  God 
acknowledges  not;  yea,  it  expressly  condemns  all  works  that 
have  any  such  defect  in  them,  as  to  render  them  unacceptable 
to  God.  Hence  notwithstanding  all  the  commands  that  God 
had  positively  given  for  the  strict  observance  of  sacrifices,  offer- 
ings, and  the  like,  yet  when  the  people  performed  them  with- 
out faith  and  love,  he  expressly  affirms  that  he  commanded 
them  not,  that  is,  to  be  observed  in  such  a  manner.  In  these 
works  therefore  consisted  their  personal  rigliteousness,  as  "they 
walked  in  all  the  commandments  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord, 
blameless,"  Luke  i.  6,  wherein  they  "instantly  served  God  day 
and  night,"  Acts  xxvi.  7.  And  this  they  esteemed  to  be  their 
own  righteousness,  their  righteousness  according  to  the  law,  as 
really  it  was,  Phil.  iii.  6,  9.  For  although  the  Pharisees  had 
greatly  corrupted  the  doctrine  of  the  law,  and  put  false  glosses 


WORKS    OF    IT,    IN    THE    EPISTLES    OP    PAUL.  325 

on  sundry  precepts  of  it;  yet,  that  the  church  in  those  days  did 
by  the  works  of  the  law,  understand  either  ceremonial  duties 
only,  or  external  works,  or  works  with  a  conceit  of  merit,  or 
works  wrought  without  an  internal  principle  of  faith,  and  love 
to  God,  or  any  thing  but  their  own  personal  sincere  obedience 
to  the  whole  doctrine  and  rule  of  the  law,  there  is  nothing  that 
should  give  the  least  colour  of  imagination.     For, 

1.  All  this  is  perfectly  stated  in  the  suffrage  which  the  scribe 
gave  to  the  declaration  of  the  sense  and  design  of  the  law,  with 
the  nature  of  the  obedience  which  it  requires,  that  was  made 
at  his  request  by  our  blessed  Saviour,  Mark  xii.  28 — 33.  "And 
one  of  the  scribes  came,  and  having  heard  them  reasoning  to- 
gether, and  perceiving  that  he  had  answered  them  well,  asked 
him,  which  is  the  first  commandment  of  all,"  or  as  it  is,  Matt, 
xxii.  36.  "  Which  is  the  great  commandment  in  the  law?  And 
Jesus  answered  him,  the  first  of  all  the  commandments  is,  hear, 
0  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord;  and  thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  mind,  and  with  all  thy  strength;  this  is  the  first 
commandment:  and  the  second  is  like,  namely  this,  thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.  And  the  scribe  said  unto  him, 
well.  Master,  thou  hast  said  the  truth;  for  there  is  one  God, and 
there  is  none  but  he.  And  to  love  him  with  all  the  heart,  and 
with  all  the  understanding,  and  with  all  the  soul,  and  with  all 
the  strength,  and  to  love  his  neighbour  as  himself,  is  more  than 
all  whole  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices."  And  this  is  so  express- 
ly given  by  Moses  as  the  sum  of  the  law,  namely,  faith  and 
love,  as  the  principle  of  all  our  obedience.  Dent.  vi.  4,  5,  that  it 
is  marvellous  what  should  induce  any  learned  sober  person  to 
fix  upon  any  other  sense  of  it;  as  that  it  respected  ceremonial 
or  external  works  only,  or  such  as  may  be  wrought  without 
faith  or  love.  This  is  the  law  concerning  which  the  Apostle 
disputes,  and  this  the  obedience  wherein  the  works  of  it  con- 
sist. And  more  than  this,  in  the  way  of  obedience,  God  never 
did  nor  will  require  of  any  in  this  world.  Wherefore  the  law, 
which  the  Apostle  excludes  from  justification,  is  that  whereby 
we  are  obliged  to  believe  in  God  as  one  God,  the  only  God,  and 
love  him  with  all  our  hearts  and  souls,  and  our  neighbours  as 
ourselves.  And  what  works  there  are,  or  can  be  in  any  persons 
regenerate  or  not  regenerate,  to  be  performed  in  the  strength 
of  grace,  or  without  it,  that  are  acceptable  to  God,  that  may 
not  be  reduced  to  these  heads,  I  know  not. 

2.  The  Apostle  himself  declares,  that  it  is  the  law  and  the 

28 


326  WHAT   INTENDED   BY   THE    LAW,  AND    THE 

works  of  it  in  the  sense  we  have  expressed,  that  he  excludes 
from  our  justification. 

For  the  law  he  speaks  of,  is  the  "  law  of  righteousness," 
Rom.  ix.  31,  the  law  whose  righteousness  is  to  be  fulfilled  in 
us,  that  we  may  be  accepted  with  God,  and  freed  from  con- 
demnation, Rom.  viii.  3;  that,  in  obedience  whereto  our  own 
personal  righteousness  consists,  whether  what  we  judge  so, 
before  conversion,  Rom.  x.  3,  or  what  is  so  after  it,  Phil.  iii.  9, 
the  law  which  if  a  man  observe,  he  shall  live,  and  be  justified 
before  God,  Rom.  ii.  13.  Gal.  iii.  12.  Rom.  x.  5;  that  law  which 
is  "holy,  just,  and  good,"  which  discovers  and  condemns  all 
sin  whatever,  Rom.  vii.  7.  9. 

From  what  has  been  discoursed,  these  two  things  are  evi- 
dent in  the  confirmation  of  our  present  argument.  (1)  That 
the  law  intended  by  the  Apostle,  when  he  denies  that  by  the 
works  of  the  law  any  can  be  justified,  is  the  entire  rule  and 
guide  of  our  obedience  to  God,  even  as  to  the  whole  frame 
and  spiritual  constitution  of  our  souls,  with  all  the  acts  of  obe- 
dience or  duties  that  he  requires  of  us.  And  (2)  that  the  works 
of  this  law  which  he  so  frequently  and  plainly  excludes  from 
our  justification,  and  therein  opposes  to  the  grace  of  God,  and 
the  blood  of  Christ,  are  all  the  duties  of  obedience,  internal, 
supernatural,  external,  ritual,  however  we  are  or  may  be  en- 
abled to  perform  them,  that  God  requires  of  us.  And  these 
things  excluded,  it  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone  imputed 
to  us,  on  the  account  whereof  we  are  justified  before  God. 

The  truth  is,  so  far  as  I  can  discern,  the  real  difference  that 
is  at  this  day  amongst  us  about  the  doctrine  of  our  justification 
before  God,  is  the  same  that  was  between  the  Apostle  and  the 
Jews,  and  no  other.  But  controversies  in  religion  make  a 
great  appearance  of  being  new,  when  ihey  are  only  varied  and 
made  different,  by  the  new  terms  and  expressions  that  are  in- 
troduced into  the  handling  of  them.  So  has  it  fallen  out  in  the 
controversy  about  nature  and  grace;  for  as  to  the  true  nature 
of  it,  it  is  the  same  in  these  days,  as  it  was  between  the  Apos- 
tle Paul  and  the  Pharisees,  between  Austin  and  Pelagius  after- 
wards. But  it  has  now  passed  through  so  many  forms  and 
dresses  of  words,  that  it  can  scarce  be  known  to  be  what  it 
was.  Many  at  this  day  will  condenrn  both  Pelagius  and  the 
doctrine  that  he  taught,  in  the  words  wherein  he  taught  it,  and 
yet  embrace  and  approve  of  the  things  themselves  which  he 
mtended.  The  iiuroduction  of  every  change  in  philosophical 
learning,  gives  an  appearance  of  a  change  in  the  controversies 


WORKS  OF    IT,    IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL.  327 

which  are  managed  thereby.  But  take  off  the  covering  of 
philosophical  expressions,  distinctions,  metaphysical  notions, 
and  futile  terms  of  art,  which  some  of  the  ancient  schoolmen 
and  later  disputants  have  cast  upon  it,  and  the  difference  about 
grace  and  nature  is  amongst  us  all,  the  same  that  it  was  of  old, 
and  as  it  is  allowed  by  the  Socinians. 

Thus  the  Apostle  treating  of  our  justification  before  God, 
does  it  in  these  terms  which  are  botli  expressive  of  the  thing 
itself,  and  were  well  understood  by  them  with  whom  he  had 
to  do;  such  as  the  Ploly  Spirit  in  their  revelation  had  conse- 
crated to  their  proper  use.  Thus  on  tlie  one  hand  he  expressly 
excludes  the  law,  our  own  works,  our  own  righteousness,  from, 
any  interest  therein;  and  in  opposition  to,  and  as  inconsistent 
with  them  in  the  matter  of  justification,  he  ascribes  it  wholly 
to  the  righteousness  of  God,  righteousness  imputed  to  us,  the 
obedience  of  Christ,  Christ  made  righteousness  to  us,  the  blood 
of  Christ  as  a  propitiation,  faith,  receiving  Christ  and  the  atone- 
ment. There  is  no  awakened  conscience  guided  by  the  least 
beam  of  spiritual  illumination,  but  in  itself,  plainly  understands 
these  things,  and  what  is  intended  in  them.  But  through  the 
admission  of  exotic  learning,  with  philosophical  terms  and  no- 
tions, into  the  way  of  teaching  spiritual  things  in  religion,  a 
new  face  and  appearance  is  put  on  the  whole  matter,  and  a 
composition  made  between  those  things  which  the  Apostle 
directly  opposes  as  contrary  and  inconsistent.  Hence  are  all 
our  discourses  about  preparations,  dispositions,  conditions, 
merits  r/e  congruo  and  condigno,  with  such  a  train  of  disthic- 
tions,  that  if  some  bounds  be  not  fixed  to  the  inventing  and 
coining  of  them,  (which  being  a  facile  work,  grows  on  us 
every  day)  we  shall  not  ere  long  be  able  to  look  through  them, 
so  as  to  discover  the  things  intended,  or  rightly  to  understand 
one  another.  For  as  one  said  of  lies,  so  it  may  be  said  of  ar-  W 
bitrary  distinctions,  they  must  be  continually  new  thatched  #• 
over,  or  it  will  rain  through.  But  the  best  way  is  to  cast  off" 
all  these  coverings,  and  we  shall  then  quickly  see,  that  the  real 
difference  about  the  justification  of  a  sinner  before  God,  is  the 
same  and  no  other,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
between  him  and  the  Jews.  And  all  those  things  which  men 
are  pleased  now  to  plead  for,  with  respect  to  a  causality  in  our 
justification  before  God,  under  the  names  of  preparations,  con- 
ditions, dispositions,  merit  with  respect  to  a  first  or  second  jus- 
tification, are  as  effectually  excluded  by  the  Apostle,  as  if  he 
had  expressly  named  them  every  one.     For  in  them  all,  there 


328 


FAITH    ALONE. 


is  a  management  according  to  our  conceptions,  and  the  terms 
of  the  learning  pasvsing  in  the  present  age,  of  the  plea  for  our 
own  personal  righteousness  which  the  Jews  maintained  against 
the  Apostle.  And  the  true  understanding  of  what  he  intends 
by  the  law,  the  works  and  righteousness  thereof,  would  be 
sufficient  to  determine  this  controversy,  but  that  men  are  grown 
very  skilful  in  the  art  of  endless  wrangling. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


FAITH    ALONE. 


The  truth  which  we  plead  has  two  parts.  (1)  That  the  right- 
eousness of  God  imputed  to  us,  to  the  justification  of  life,  is  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  by  whose  obedience  we  are  made 
righteous.  (2)  That  it  is  faith  alone,  which  on  our  part  is  re- 
quired to  interest  us  in  that  righteousness,  or  whereby  we 
comply  with  God's  grant  and  communication  of  it,  or  receive 
it  to  our  use  and  benefit.  For  although  this  faith  is  in  itself 
the  radical  principle  of  all  obedience,  and  whatever  is  not  so, 
which  cannot,  which  does  not  on  all  occasions,  evidence,  prove, 
show  or  manifest  itself  by  works,  is  not  of  the  same  kind  with 
it,  yet  as  we  are  justified  by  it,  its  act  and  duty  is  such,  or  of 
that  nature,  that  no  other  grace,  duty  or  work  can  be  associated 
with  it,  or  be  of  any  consideration.  And  both  these  are  evi- 
dently confirmed  in  that  description  which  is  given  us  m  the 
Scripture,  of  the  nature  of  faith  and  believing  to  the  justifica- 

'jf  tion  of  life. 

^  I  know  that  many  expressions  used  in  the  declaration  of  the 
nature  and  work  of  faith  herein,  are  metaphorical,  at  least  are 
generally  esteemed  so  to  be.  But  they  are  such  as  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  his  infinite  wisdom  thought  meet  to  make  use  of,  for 
the  instruction  and  edification  of  the  church.  And  I  cannot 
but  say,  that  those  who  understand  not  how  effectually  the 
light  of  knowledge  is  communicated  by  them  to  the  minds  of 
them  that  believe,  and  a  sense  of  the  things  intended,  to  their 
spiritual  experience,  seem  not  to  have  taken  a  due  considera- 
tion of  them.  Nor,  whatever  skill  we  pretend  to,  do  we  know 
always  what  expressions  of  spiritual  things  are  metaphorical. 


FAITH    ALONE.  329 

Those  oftentimes  may  seem  so  to  be,  which  are  most  proper. 
However  it  is  most  safe  for  us  to  adhere  to  the  expressions  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  not  to  embrace  such  senses  of  things  as 
are  inconsistent  with  them,  and  opposite  to  them.  Wherefore, 
1.  That  faith  whereby  we  are  justified,  is  most  frequently  in 
the  New  Testament  expressed  by  receiving.  This  notion  of 
faith  has  been  before  spoken  to,  in  our  general  inquiry  into 
the  use  of  it  in  our  justification.  It  shall  not  therefore  be  here 
much  again  insisted  on.  Two  things  we  may  observe  con- 
cerning it.  (1)  That  it  is  so  expressed  with  respect  to  the 
whole  object  of  faith,  or  to  all  that  any  way  concurs  to  our 
justification.  For  we  are  said  to  receive  Christ  himself.  "To 
as  many  as  received  him,  he  gave  power  to  become  the  sons 
of  God,"  John  i.  12.  "  As  ye  have  received  Christ  Jesus 
the  Lord,"  Col.  ii.  6.  In  opposition  hereto  unbelief  is  express- 
ed by  "  not  receiving  him,"  John  i.  11;  iii.  11;  xii.4S;  xiv.  17. 
And  it  is  a  receiving  of  Christ,  as  he  is  "  the  Lord  our  right- 
eousness," as  "  of  God  he  is  made  righteousness"  to  us.  And 
as  no  grace,  no  duty  can  have  any  co-operation  with  faith 
herein,  this  reception  of  Christ  not  belonging  to  their  nature, 
norcomprised  in  their  exercise;  so  it  excludes  any  other  right- 
eousness from  our  justification  but  that  of  Christ  alone.  For 
we  are  justified  by  faith;  faith  alone  receives  Christ,  and  what 
it  receives  is  the  cause  of  our  justification,  whereon  we  become 
"  the  sons  of  God."  So  we  "receive  the  atonement,"  made 
by  the  blood  of  Christ,  Rom.  v.  11.  For  "God  has  set  him 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood."  And 
this  receiving  of  the  atonement,  includes  the  soul's  approbation 
of  the  way  of  salvation  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  appro- 
priation of  the  atonement  made  thereby  to  our  own  souls.  For 
thereby  also  we  receive  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  "that  they 
may  receive  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  tln'ough  the  faith  that  is  in 
me,"  Acts  xxvi.  18.  In  receiving  Christ  we  receive  the  atone- 
ment, and  in  the  atonement  we  receive  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
But  moreover,  the  grace  of  God,  and  righteousness  itself,  as 
the  efficient  and  material  cause  of  our  justification  are  received 
also;  even  the  "  abundance  of  grace,  and  the  gift  of  righteous- 
ness," Rom.  V.  17.  So  that  faith  with  the  respect  to  all  the 
causes  of  justification  is  expressed  by  receiving.  For  it  also 
receives  the  promise,  the  instrumental  cause  on  the  part  of  God 
thereof.  Acts  ii.  41.  Heb.  ix.  15.  (2)  That  the  nature  of  faith 
and  its  acting  with  respect  to  all  the  causes  of  justification  con- 
sisting in  receiving,  that  which  is  the  object  of  it  must  be 

28* 


330  FAITH    ALONE. 

offered,  tendered,  and  given  to  us,  as  that  which  is  not  our 
own,  but  is  made  our  own  by  that  giving  and  receiving.  This 
is  evident  in  the  general  nature  of  receiving.  And  herein,  as 
was  observed,  as  no  other  grace  or  duty  can  concur  with  it,  so 
the  righteousness  whereby  we  are  justified  can  be  none  of  our 
own,  antecedent  to  this  reception,  nor  at  any  time  inherent  in 
us.  Hence  we  argue,  that  if  the  work  of  faith  in  our  justifica- 
tion be  receiving  of  what  is  freely  granted,  given,  communi- 
cated and  imputed  to  us,  that  is,  of  Christ,  of  the  atonement, 
of  the  gift  of  righteousness,  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  then  have 
our  other  graces,  our  obedience,  duties,  works,  no  influence 
upon  our  justification,  nor  are  any  causes  or  conditions  thereof. 
For  they  are  neither  that  which  receives,  nor  that  which  is  re- 
ceived, which  alone  concur  thereto. 

2.  Faith  is  expressed  by  looking.  "  Look  unto  me  and  be 
saved,"  Isa,  xlv.  22.  "  A  man  shaU  look  to  his  maker,  and  his 
eyes  shall  have  respect  unto  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,"  Isa.  xvii.  1. 
'•'They  shall  look  on  me  whom  they  have  pierced,"  Zech.  xii. 
10.  See  Psal.  cxxiii.  2.  The  nature  liereof  is  expressed,  John 
iii.  14,  15.  "  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness, 
even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  in  him,  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life."  For 
so  was  he  to  be  lifted  up  on  the  cross  in  his  death,  John  viii. 
28;  xii.  32.  The  story  is  recorded  Numb.  xxi.  8,  9.  I  sup- 
pose none  doubt  but  that  the  stinging  of  the  people  by  fiery 
serpents,  and  the  death  that  ensued  thereon,  were  types  of  the 
guilt  of' sin,  and  the  sentence  of  the  fiery  law  thereon.  For 
these  things  happened  to  them  in  types,  1  Cor.  x.  11.  When 
any  was  so  stung  or  bitten,  if  he  betook  himself  to  any  other 
remedies,  he  died  and  perished.  Only  they  that  looked  to  the 
brazen  serpent  that  was  lifted  up,  were  healed  and  lived.  For 
this  was  the" ordinance  of  God,  this  way  of  heahng  alone  had 
he  appointed.  And  their  healing  was  a  type  of  the  pardon  of 
sin  with  everlasting  life.  So  by  their  looking,  is  the  nature  of 
faith  expressed,  as  our  Saviour  plainly  expounds  it  in  this  place. 
"  So  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that  he  that  believeth  un 
him,"  that  is  as  the  Israelites  looked  to  the  serpent  in  the  wil- 
derness. And  although  this  expression  of  the  great  mystery  of 
the  gospel  by  Christ  himself,  has  been  by  some  derided,  or  as 
they  call  it  exposed,  yet  is  it  really  as  instructive  of  the  nature  of 
faith,  justification  and  salvation  by  Christ,  as  any  passage  in  the 
Scripture.  Now  if  faith,  whereby  we  are  justified,  and  in  that 
exercise  of  it  wherein  we  are  so,  be  a  looking  to  Christ,  under 


FAITH    ALONE.  331 

a  sense  of  the  guilt  of  sin  and  our  lost  condition  thereby,  for 
all,  for  our  only  help  and  relief,  for  deliverance,  righteousness, 
and  life,  then  is  it  therein  exclusive  of  all  other  graces  and  duties 
whatever;  for  by  them  we  neither  look, nor  are  they  the  things 
which  we  look  after.  But  so  is  the  nature  and  exercise  of  faith 
expressed  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  they  who  believe, understand 
his  mind.  For  whatever  may  be  pretended  of  metaphor  in  the 
expression,  faith  is  that  act  of  the  soul  whereby  they  who  are 
hopeless,  helpless,  and  lost  in  themselves,  do  in  a  v/ay  of  ex- 
pectancy and  trust  seek  for  all  help  and  relief  in  Christ  alone; 
or  there  is  not  truth  in  it.  And  this  also  sufficiently  evinces  the 
nature  of  our  justification  by  Christ. 

3.  It  is  in  like  manner  frequently  expressed  by  coming  to 
Christ.  "  Come  unto  me  all  ye  that  labour,"  Matt.  xi.  28.  See 
John  vi.  35.  37.  45.  65;  vii.  37.  To  come  to  Christ  for  life  and 
salvation,  is  to  believe  on  him  to  the  justification  of  life.  But 
no  other  grace  or  duty  is  a  coming  to  Christ,  and  therefore  have 
they  no  place  in  justification.  He  who  has  been  convinced  of 
sin,  who  has  been  wearied  with  the  burthen  of  it,  who  has 
really  designed  to  fly  from  the  wrath  to  come,  and  has  heard 
the  voice  of  Christ  in  the  gospel,  inviting  him  to  come  to  him 
for  help  and  relief,  will  tell  you  that  this  coming  to  Christ  con- 
sists in  a  man's  going  out  of  himself,  in  a  complete  renuncia- 
tion of  all  his  own  duties  and  righteousness,  and  betaking  him- 
self with  all  his  trust  and  confidence  to  Christ  alone,  and  his 
righteousness,  for  pardon  of  sin,  acceptance  with  God,  and  a 
right  to  the  heavenly  inheritance.  It  may  be  some  will  say  this 
is  not  believing,  but  canting;  be  it  so,  we  refer  the  judgment  of 
it  to  the  church  of  God. 

4.  It  is  expressed  hy  flying  for  refuge,  Heb.  vi.  18.  "Who 
have  fled  for  refuge,  to  lay  hold  on  the  hope  set  before  us," 
Prov.  xviii.  10.  Hence  some  have  defined  faith  to  hepeifuginm 
anitnse,  "the  flight  of  the  soul"  to  Christ  for  deliverance  from 
sin  and  misery.  And  much  light  is  given  to  the  understanding 
of  the  thing  intended  thereby.  For  herein  it  is  supposed,  that 
he  who  believes  is  antecedently  thereto  convinced  of  his  lost 
condition,  and  that  if  he  abide  therein  he  must  perish  eternally; 
that  he  has  nothing  of  himself  whereby  he  may  be  delivered 
from  it;  that  he  must  betake  himself  to  somewhat  else  for  re- 
lief; that  to  this  end  he  considers  Christ  as  set  before  him  and 
proposed  to  him  in  the  promise  of  the  gospel;  that  he  judges 
this  to  be  a  holy,  a  safe  way  for  his  deliverance  and  acceptance 
with  God,  as  that  which  has  the  characters  of  all  divine  excel- 


332  THE    TRUTH    PLEADED,     FURTHER    CONFIRMED 

lencies  upon  it ;  hereon  he  flieth  to  it  for  refuge,  that  is,  with 
diligence  and  speed  that  he  perish  not  in  his  present  condition; 
he  betakes  himself  to  it  by  placing  his  whole  trust  and  affiance 
thereon.  And  the  whole  nature  of  onr  justification  by  Christ 
is  better  declared  hereby  to  the  supernatural  sense  and  expe- 
rience of  believers,  than  by  an  hundred  philosophical  disputa- 
tions about  it. 

5.  The  terms  and  notions  by  which  it  is  expressed  under  the 
Old  Testament,  are  leaning  on  God,  Micah  iii.  11,  or  Christ, 
Cant.  viii.  5,  rolling,  or  casting  ourselves  and  our  burthen  on 
the  Lord,  Psal.  xxii.  S;  xxxvn.  5;  the  wisdom  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  such  expressions  has  by  some  been  profanely  de- 
rided. Resting  on  God,  or  in  him,  2  Chron.  xiv.  11.  Psal. 
xxxvii.  7.  Cleaving  to  the  Lord,  Deut.  iv.  4.  Acts  xi.  15;  as 
also  by  trusting,  hoping,  and  loaiting  in  places  innumerable. 
And  it  may  be  observed  that  those  who  acted  faith  as  it  is  thus 
expressed,  do  every  where  declare  themselves  to  be  lost,  hope- 
less, helpless,  desolate,  poor,  orphans,  whereon  they  place  all 
their  hope  and  expectation  on  God  alone. 

All  that  I  would  infer  from  these  things,  is,  that  the  faith 
whereby  we  believe  to  the  justification  of  life,  or  which  is 
required  of  us  in  a  way  of  diUy  that  we  may  be  justified,  is 
such  an  act  of  the  whole  soul  whereby  convinced  sinners 
wholly  go  out  of  themselves  to  rest  upon  God  in  Christ,  for 
mercy,  pardon,  life,  righteousness,  and  salvation,  with  an  ac- 
quiescency  of  heart  therein,  which  is  the  whole  of  the  truth 
pleaded  for. 


CHAPTER  XVL 

THE  TRUTH    PLEADED,  FURTHER   CONFIRMED    BY    TESTIMONIES    OF   SCRIP- 
TURE,   JER.    XXllI.    6. 

That  which  we  now  proceed  to,  is  the  consideration  of  those 
express  testimonies  of  Scripture  which  are  given  to  the  truth 
pleaded  for,  and  especially  of  those  places  where  the  doctrine 
of  the  justification  of  suiners  is  expressly  and  designedly 
handled.  From  them  it  is,  that  we  must  learn  the  truth,  and 
into  them  must  our  faith  be  resolved,  to  whose  authority  all 


BY   TESTIMONIES    OF    SCRIPTURE.  333 

the  arguings  and  objections  of  men  must  give  place.  By  them 
is  more  light  conveyed  into  the  understandings  of  believers, 
than  by  the  most  subtle  disputations.  And  it  is  a  thing  not 
without  scandal,  to  see  among  Protestants  whole  books  written 
about  justification,  wherein  scarce  one  testimony  of  Scripture 
is  produced,  unless  it  be  to  find  out  evasions  from  the  force  of 
them.  And  in  particular,  whereas  the  Apostle  Paul  iias  most 
fully  and  expressly  (as  he  had  the  greatest  occasion  so  to  do) 
declared  and  vindicated  the  doctrine  of  evangelical  justification, 
not  a  few  in  what  they  write  about  it,  are  so  far  from  declar- 
ing their  thoughts  and  faith  concerning  it,  out  of  his  writings, 
that  they  begin  to  reflect  upon  them  as  obscure,  and  such  as 
give  occasion  to  dangerous  mistakes ;  and  unless,  as  was  said, 
to  answer  and  except  against  them  upon  their  own  corrupt 
principles,  seldom  or  never  make  mention  of  them.  As  though 
we  were  grown  wiser  than  he,  or  that  Spirit  whereby  he  was 
inspired,  guided, actuated  in  all  that  he  wrote;  but  there  can  be 
nothing  more  alien  from  the  genius  of  Christianity,  than  for 
us  not  to  endeavour  humbly  to  learn  the  mystery  of  the  grace 
of  God  herein,  in  the  declaration  of  it  made  by  him.  But  "  the 
foundation  of  God  standeth  sure,"  what  course  soever  men 
shall  be  pleased  to  take  in  their  profession  of  religion. 

For  the  testimonies  which  I  shall  produce  and  insist  upon, 
I  desire  the  reader  to  observe,  (1)  That  they  are  but  some  of 
the  many  that  might  be  pleaded  to  the  same  purpose.  (2)  That 
those  which  have  been,  or  yet  shall  be  alleged  on  particular 
occasions,  I  shall  wholly  omit;  and  such  are  most  of  them  that 
are  given  to  this  truth  in  the  Old  Testament.  (3)  That  in  the 
exposition  of  them,  I  shall  with  what  diligence  I  can  attend 
(1)  To  the  analogy  of  faith,  that  is  the  manifest  scope  and  de- 
sign of  the  revelation  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God  in  the  Scrip- 
ture. And  that  this  is  to  exdit  the  freeuess  and  riches  of  his 
own  grace,  the  glory  and  excellency  of  Christ,  and  his  media- 
tion, to  discover  the  woful,  lost,  forlorn  condition  of  man  by 
sin,  to  debase  and  depress  every  thing  that  is  in  and  of  our- 
selves, as  to  the  attaining  life,  righteousness  and  salvation,  can- 
not be  denied  by  any  one  who  have  their  senses  exercised  in 
the  Scriptures.  (2)  To  the  experience  of  them  that  believe, 
with  the  condition  of  them  who  seek  after  justification  by  Jesus 
Christ.  In  other  things  I  hope  the  best  helps  and  rules  of  the 
interpretation  of  the  Scripture  shall  not  be  neglected. 

There  is  weight  in  this  case  deservedly  laid  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  as  promised  and  given 


334  THE    TRUTH    PLEADED,    FURTHER    CONFIRMED 

to  US;  namely,  "the  Lord  our  righteousness,"  Jer.  xxiii.  6. 
As  the  name  Jehovah,  being  given  and  ascribed  to  him,  is  a 
full  indication  of  his  divine  person ;  so  the  addition  of  his  being 
our  righteousness,  sufficiently  declares,  that  in,  and  by  him 
alone,  we  have  righteousness, or  are  made  righteous.  So  was 
he  typified  by  Melchisedec,  as  first,  "  the  king  of  righteous- 
ness," then  "the  king  of  peace,"  Heb.  vii,  2.  For  by  his 
righteousness  alone  have  we  peace  with  God.  Some  of  the 
Socinians  would  evade  this  testimony,  by  observing,  that  right- 
eousness in  the  Old  Testament  is  used  sometimes  for  benignity, 
kindness  and  mercy,  and  so  they  suppose  it  may  be  here.  But 
the  most  of  them,  avoiding  the  palpable  absurdity  of  this  imagi- 
nation, refer  it  to  the  righteousness  of  God  in  deliverance,  and 
vindication  of  his  people.  So  Brennius  briefly,  Ifa  vocatur 
quia  Dominus  per  manum  ejus  judicium  et  justitiain  faciei 
Israeli.  "  He  is  so  called,  because  the  Lord,  by  his  hand,  shall 
execute  judgment  and  justice  for  Israel."  But  these  are  eva- 
sions of  bold  men,  who  care  not,  so  they  may  say  somewhat, 
whether  what  they  say,  be  agreeable  to  the  analogy  of  faith, 
or  the  plain  words  of  the  Scripture.  Bellarmine  who  was  more 
wary  to  give  some  appearance  of  truth  to  his  answers,  first 
gives  other  reasons  why  he  is  called  "the  Lord  our  righteous- 
ness," and  then,  whether  unawares,  or  overpowered  by  the 
evidence  of  truth,  grants  that  sense  of  the  words  which  contains 
the  whole  of  the  cause  we  plead  for.  Christ,  he  says,  "  may  be 
called  the  Lord  our  righteousness,  because  he  is  the  efficient 
cause  of  our  righteousness."  As  God  is  said  to  be  "  our  strength 
and  salvation."  Again,  "Christ  is  said  to  be  our  righteous- 
ness; as  he  is  our  v/isdom,  our  redemption,  and  our  peace;  be- 
cause he  has  redeemed  us,  and  makes  us  wise  and  righteous, 
and  reconciles  us  to  God:"  and  other  reasons  of  the  same  na- 
ttire  are  added  by  others.  But  not  trusting  to  these  expositions 
of  the  words,  he  adds,*  "  Christ  is  said  to  be  our  righteousness 
because  he  has  made  satisfaction  for  us  to  the  Father;  and  so 
gives  and  communicates  that  satisfaction  to  us,  when  he  justi- 
fies us,  that  it  may  be  said  to  be  our  satisfaction,  and  right- 
eousness. And  in  this  sense  it  would  not  be  absurd  if  any  one 
should  say,  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  and  his  merits  are 

*  Deinde  dicitur  Christus  justitia  nostra,  quoiiiam  satisfecit  Patri  pro  nobis, 
et  earn  satisfactionem  ita  nobis  donat  et  eommiinicat,  cum  nos  justificat  ut  nostra 
satisfactio  et  justitia  dici  possit.  Hoc  inodo  non  esset  absurdum,  si  quis  diceret 
nobis  itiijiutari  Christi  justitiain  et  nierita,  cum  nobis  donantur  et  applicanlnr,  ac 
si  nos  ipsi  Deo  satisf'ecissemus.     De  justificat.  lib.  ii.  cap.  10, 


BY   TESTIMONIES    OF    SCRIPTURE.  335 

imputed  to  ns,  when  they  are  given  and  applied  to  us,  as  if  we 
ourselves  had  satisfied  God." 

In  this  sense  we  say,  that  Christ  is  the  Lord  our  rig;hteous- 
ness;  nor  is  there  any  thing  of  importance  in  the  whole  doc- 
trine of  justification  that  we  own,  which  is  not  here  granted  by 
the  Cardinal;  and  that  in  terms  which  some  among  ourselves 
scruple  and  oppose.  I  shall  therefore  look  a  little  further  into 
this  testimony  which  has  wrested  so  eminent  a  confession  of 
the  truth  from  so  great  an  adversary.  "Behold,  the  days  come, 
saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  raise  up  unto  David  a  righteous 
Branch,  and  this  is  his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  The 
Lord  our  righteousness,"  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  6.  It  is  confessed  among 
Christians  that  this  is  an  illustrious  renovation  of  the  first  pro- 
mise, concerning  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  our 
salvation  by  him.  This  promise  was  first  given  when  we  had 
lost  our  original  righteonsnesss,  and  were  considered  only  as 
those  who  had  sinned  and  come  sli^ort  of  the  glory  of  God.  In 
this  estate,  a  righteousness  was  absolutely  necessary  that  we 
might  be  again  accepted  with  God;  for  without  a  righteousness, 
yea  that  which  is  perfect  and  complete,  we  never  were  so,  nor 
ever  can  be  so.  In  this  estate  it  is  promised  that  he  shall  be 
our  righteousness,  or  as  the  Apostle  expresses  it,  "  the  end  of 
the  law  for  righteousness  to  them  that  believe."  That  he  is  so, 
there  can  be  no  question  ;  the  whole  inquiry  is,  how  he  is  so. 
This,  say  the  most  sober  and  modest  of  our  adversaries,  is  be- 
cause he  is  the  efficient  cause  of  our  righteousness,  that  is,  of 
our  personal  inherent  righteousness.  But  this  righteousness 
may  be  considered  either  in  itself,  as  it  is  an  effect  of  God's 
grace,  and  so  it  is  good  and  holy,  although  it  be  not  perleci  and 
complete;  or  it  may  be  considered  as  it  is  ours,  inherent  in  us, 
accompanied  with  the  remaining  defilements  of  our  nature;  in 
that  respect,  as  this  righteousiiess  is  ours,  the  prophet  affirms 
that  (in  the  sight  of  God)  "  we  are  all  as  an  unclean  thing,  and 
all  our  righteousnesses  are  as  filthy  rags,"  Isa.  Ixiv.  6;  that  is, 
our  whole  personal,  inherent  righteousness.  And  the  Lord 
Christ  cannot  from  hence  be  denominated  "the  Lord  our  right- 
eousness," seeing  it  is  all  "as  filthy  rags."  It  must  therefore 
be  a  righteousness  of  another  sort  whence  this  denomination  is 
taken,  and  on  the  account  whereof  this  name  is  given  him. 
Wherefore  he  is  our  righteousness,  as  all  our  righteousnesses 
are  in  him.  So  the  church  which  confesses  all  her  own  right- 
eousnesses to  be  filthy  rags,  says,  "In  the  Lord  have  I  righteous- 
ness," Isa.  xlv.  24,  which  is  expounded  of  Christ  by  the  Apos- 


336       THE  TRUTH  PLEADED,  FURTHER  CONFIRMED 

tie,  Rom.  xiv.  11,  "only  in  the  Lord  are  my  righteousnesses;" 
which  two  places  the  Apostle  expresses,  Phil.  iii.  9,  "that  I 
may  win  Christ  and  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own 
righteousness  which  is  of  the  law  (in  this  case  as  filthy  rags) 
but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness 
which  is  of  God  by  faith."  Hence  it  is  added,  "in  the  Lord 
shall  the  seed  of  Israel  be  justified,"  ver.  25,  namely,  because 
he  is,  in  what  he  is,  in  what  he  was,  and  did,  as  given  to  and 
for  us,  "  our  righteousness,"  and  our  righteousness  is  all  in  him; 
which  totally  excludes  our  own  personal  inherent  righteousness 
from  any  interest  in  our  justification,  and  ascribes  it  wholly  to 
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  And  thus  is  that  emphatical  ex- 
pression of  the  Psalmist,  "I  will  go  in  the  strength  of  the  Lord 
God;"  (for  as  to  holiness  and  obedience,  all  our  spiritual 
strength  is  from  him  alone)  and  "  I  will  make  mention  of  thy 
righteousness,  of  thine  only;"  Psalm  Ixxi.  16,  the  redoubling 
of  the  affix  excludes  all  confidence  and  trusting  in  anything 
but  the  righteousness  of  God  alone.  For  this  the  Apostle  af- 
firms to  be  the  design  of  God,  in  making  Christ  to  be  righteous- 
ness to  us,  namely,  "  that  no  flesh  should  glory  in  his  presence, 
but  that  he  that  glorieth,  should  glory  in  the  Lord,"  1  Cor.  i. 
29 — 31.  For  it  is  by  faith  alone  making  mention,  as  to  our  jus- 
tification, of  the  righteousness  of  God,  of  his  righteousness  only, 
that  all  boasting  is  excluded,  Rom.  iii.  27.  And,  besides,  what 
shall  be  further  pleaded  from  particular  testimonies,  the  Scrip- 
ture eminently  declares  how  he  is  the  Lord  our  righteousness, 
namely,  in  that  he  "  makes  an  end  of  sin  and  reconciliation  for 
iniquity,  and  brings  in  everlasting  righteousness,"  Dan.  ix.  24. 
For  by  these  things  is  our  justification  completed;  namely,  in 
satisfaction  made  for  sin,  the  pardon  of  it  in  our  reconciliation 
to  God,  and  the  providing  for  us  an  everlasting  righteousness. 
Therefore  is  he  the  Lord  our  righteousness,  and  so  rightly  call- 
ed. Wherefore  seeing  we  had  lost  original  righteousness,  and 
had  none  of  our  own  remaining,  and  stood  in  need  of  a  perfect, 
complete  righteousness  to  procure  our  acceptance  with  God, 
and  such  a  one  as  might  exclude  all  occasion  of  boasting  of  any 
thing  in  ourselves,  the  Lord  Christ  being  given  and  made  to 
us  the  Lord  our  righteousness,  in  whom  we  have  all  our  right- 
eousness, our  own,  as  it  is  ours,  being  as  filthy  rags  in  the  sight 
of  God,  and  this  by  making  an  end  of  sin,  and  reconciliation 
for  iniquity,  and  bringing  in  everlasting  righteousness,  it  is  by 
his  righteousness,  by  his  only,  that  we  are  justified  in  the  sight 
of  God,  and  do  glory.     This  is  the  substance  of  what,  in  this 


BY    TESTIMONIES    OF    SCRIPTURE.  337 

case,  we  plead  for;  and  thus  it  is  delivered  in  the  Scripture,  in 
a  way  bringing  more  light  and  spiritual  sense  into  the  minds 
of  believers,  than  those  philosophical  expressions,  and  distinc- 
tions, which  vaunt  themselves  with  a  pretence  of  propriety  and 
accuracy. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

TESTIMONIES    OUT   OF    THE    EVANGELISTS,    CONSIDERED. 

The  reasons  why  the  doctrine  of  justification,  by  the  imputa- 
tion of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  more  fully  and  clearly  de- 
livered in  the  following  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  than 
it  is  in  those  of  the  Evangelists  who  wrote  the  history  of  the 
life  and  death  of  Christ,  have  been  before  declared.  But  yet 
in  them  also  it  is  sufficiently  attested,  as  to  the  state  of  the 
church  before  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  is  re- 
presented in  them.  Some  few  of  the  many  testimonies  which 
may  be  pleaded  out  of  their  writings  to  that  purpose,  I  shall 
consider. 

1.  The  principal  design  of  our  blessed  Saviour's  sermon, 
especially  that  part  of  it  which  is  recorded  Matt.  v.  is  to  declare 
the  true  nature  of  righteousness  before  God.  The  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  from  a  bondage  to  whose  doctrines  he  designed  to 
vindicate  the  consciences  of  those  that  heard  him,  placed  all 
our  righteousness  before  God  in  the  works  of  the  law,  or  men's 
own  obedience  thereto.  This  they  taught  the  people,  and 
hereon  they  justified  themselves,  as  he  charges  them,  Luke 
xvi.  15.  "Ye  are  they  which  justify  yourselves  before  men, 
but  God  knoweth  your  hearts;  for  that  which  is  highly  esteemed 
amongst  men,  is  abomination  in  the  sight  of  God;"  as  in  this 
sermon  he  makes  it  evident.  And  all  those  who  were  under 
their  conduct,  sought  to  "establish  their  own  righteousness,  as 
it  were  by  the  works  of  the  law,"  Rom.  ix.  33;  x.  3.  But  yet 
were  they  convinced  in  their  own  consciences,  that  they  could 
not  attain  to  the  law  of  righteousness;  or  to  that  perfection  of 
obedience  Vvhich  the  law  required.  Yet  would  they  not  forego 
their  proud,  fond  imagination  of  justificaiion  by  their  own 
righteousness,  but,  as  the  manner  of  all  men  is  in  the  same  case, 
sought  out  other  inventions  to  relieve  them  against  their  con- 

29 


338  TESTIMONIES    OUT    OF 

victions.  P'or  to  this  end,  they  corrupted  the  whole  law  by 
their  false  glosses  and  interpretations,  to  bring  down  and  de- 
base the  sense  of  it,  to  what  they  boasted  in  themselves  to  per- 
form. So  does  he  in  whom  our  Saviour  gives  an  instance  of 
the  principle  and  practice  of  the  whole  society,  by  way  of  a 
parable.  Lukexviii.  10 — 12.  And  so  the  young  man  atfirmed, 
that  he  had  kept  the  whole  law  from  his  youth,  namely  in 
their  sense.  Matt.  xix.  20. 

To  root  this  pernicious  error  out  of  the  church,  our  Lord 
.Jesus  Christ  in  many  instances,  gives  the  true,  spiritual  sense 
and  intention  of  the  law,  manifesting  what  the  righteousness  is, 
which  the  law  requires,  and  on  what  terms  a  man  may  be  jus- 
tified thereby.  And  among  sundry  others  to  the  same  purpose, 
two  things  he  evidently  declares.  (1)  That  the  law  in  its  pre- 
cepts and  prohibitions  had  regard  to  the  regulation  of  the  heart, 
with  all  its  first  motions  and  actings.  For  he  asserts,  that  the 
inmost  thoughts  of  the  heart,  and  the  first  motions  of  concu- 
piscence therein,  though  not  consented  to,  much  less  actually 
accomplished  in  the  outward  deeds  of  sin,  and  all  the  oc- 
casions leading  to  them,  are  directly  forbidden  in  the  law. 
This  he  does  in  his  holy  exposition  of  the  seventh  command- 
ment. (2)  He  declares  the  penalty  of  the  law,  on  the  least  sin, 
to  be  hell  fire,  in  his  assertion  of  causeless  anger  to  be  for- 
bidden in  the  sixth  commandment.  If  men  would  but  try 
themselves  by  these  rules  and  others  there  given  by  our  Sa- 
viour, it  would,  it  may  be,  take  them  ofi"  from  boasting  in  their 
own  righteousness  and  justification  thereby.  But  as  it  was  then, 
so  is  it  now  also;  the  most  of  them  who  would  maintain  a  jus- 
tification by  works,  attempt  to  corrupt  the  sense  of  the  law,  and 
accommodate  it  to  their  own  practice.  The  reader  may  see  an 
eminent  demonstration  hereof,  in  a  late  excellent  treatise,  whose 
title  is,  "  The  Practical  Divinity  of  the  Papists  discovered  to 
be  destructive  of  Christianity  and  Men's  souls."  The  spirit- 
uality of  the  law,  with  the  severity  of  its  sanction,  extending 
itself  to  the  least,  and  most  imperceptible  motions  of  sin  in  the 
heart,  are  not  believed,  or  not  aright  considered  by  them  who 
plead  for  justification  by  works  in  any  sense.  Wherefore  the 
principal  design  of  the  sermon  of  our  Saviour  is,  to  declare 
what  is  the  nature  of  that  obedience  which  God  requires  by 
the  law,  and  to  prepare  the  minds  of  his  disciples  to  seek  after 
another  righteousness,  which  in  the  cause  and  means  of  it,  was 
not  yet  plainly  to  be  declared,  although  many  of  them  being 
prepared  by  the  ministry  of  John  hungered  and  thirsted  after  it. 


THE    EVANGELISTS,    CONSIDERED.  339 

But  he  sufficiently  intimates  wherein  it  consisted,  in  that  he 
affirms  of  himself,  that  he  came  to  fulfil  the  law.  What  he 
came  for,  that  he  was  sent  for;  for  as  he  was  sent,  and  not  for 
himself,  (he  was  born  to  us,  given  to  us,)  this  was  to  fulfil  the 
law,  that  so  the  righteousness  of  it  might  be  fulfilled  in  us. 
And  if  we  ourselves  cannot  fulfil  the  law  in  the  proper  sense 
of  its  commands,  which  yet  is  not  to  be  abolished  but  estab- 
lished, as  our  Saviour  declares;  if  we  cannot  avoid  the  curse 
and  penalty  of  it  upon  its  transgression;  and  if  he  came  to  ful- 
fil it  for  us,  all  which  are  declared  by  himself,  then  is  his 
righteousness,  even  that  which  he  wrought  for  us  in  fulfilling 
the  law,  the  righteousness  wherewith  we  are  justified  before 
God.  And  whereas  here  is  a  twofold  righteousness  proposed 
to  us,  one  in  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  by  Christ;  the  other  in 
our  own  perfect  obedience  to  the  law,  as  the  sense  of  it  is  by 
him  declared,  and  other  middle  righteousness  between  them 
there  is  none;  it  is  left  to  the  consciences  of  convinced  sinners, 
which  of  these  they  will  adhere  and  trust  to.  And  their  direc- 
tion herein,  is  the  principal  design  we  ought  to  have  in  the 
declaration  of  this  doctrine. 

I  shall  pass  by  all  those  places  wherein  the  foundations  of 
this  doctrine  are  surely  laid,  because  it  is  not  expressly  men- 
tioned in  them.  But  such  they  are  as  in  their  proper  interpre- 
tation do  necessarily  infer  it.  Of  this  kind  are  all  those  where- 
in the  Lord  Christ  is  said  to  die  for  us,  or  in  our  stead,  to  lay 
down  his  life  a  ransom  for  us,  or  in  our  stead,  and  the  like; 
but  I  shall  pass  them  by,  because  I  will  not  digress  at  all  from 
the  present  argument. 

But  the  representation  made  by  our  Saviour  himself,  of  the 
way  and  means  whereon  and  whereby  men  come  to  be  justi- 
fied before  God,  in  the  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Pub- 
lican, is  a  guide  to  all  men  who  have  the  same  design  with 
them.  Luke  xviii.  9 — 14.  "  And  he  spake  this  parable  unto 
certain  which  trusted  in  themselves,  that  they  were  righteous 
and  despised  others.  Two  men  went  up  to  the  temple  to  pray, 
the  one  a  Pharisee,  and  the  other  a  Publican.  The  Pharisee 
stood  and  prayed  thus  with  himself;  God,  I  thank  thee,  that  I 
am  not  as  other  men  are,  extortioners,  unjust,  adulterers,  or 
even  as  this  Publican.  I  fast  twice  in  the  week,  I  give  tithes 
of  all  that  I  possess.  And  the  Publican  standing  afar  off,  would 
not  lift  up  so  much  as  his  eyes  unto  heaven,  but  smote  upon 
his  breast,  saying,  God  be  merciful  unto  me  a  sinner.  I  tell 
you,  that  this  man  went  down  unto  his  house  justified,  rather 


340  TESTIMONIES    OUT    OP 

than  the  other.  For  every  one  that  exalteth  himself,  shall 
be  abased;  and  every  one  that  humbleth  himself,  shall  be  ex- 
alted." 

That  the  design  of  our  Saviour  herein,  was  to  represent  the 
way  of  our  justification  before  God,  is  evident.  (1)  From  the 
description  given  of  the  persons  whom  he  reflected  on,  ver.  9. 
They  were  such  as  "trusted  in  themselves,  that  they  were 
righteous;"  or,  that  they  had  a  personal  righteousness  of  their 
own  before  God.  (2)  From  the  general  rule  wherewith  he 
confirms  the  judgment  he  had  given  concerning  the  persons  de- 
scribed. "Every  one  that  exalteth  himself  shall  be  abased,  and 
he  that  abaseth  himself  shall  be  exalted."  As  this  is  applied 
to  the  Pharisee,  and  the  prayer  that  is  ascribed  to  him,  it  de- 
clares plainly,  that  every  plea  of  our  own  works,  as  to  our  jus- 
tification before  God,  under  any  consideration,  is  a  self  exalta- 
tion which  God  despises;  and  as  applied  to  the  Publican,  that 
a  sense  of  sin  is  the  only  preparation  on  our  part  for  acceptance 
with  him  on  believing. 

Wherefore  both  the  persons  are  represented,  as  seeking  to  be 
justified,  for  so  our  Saviour  expresses  the  issue  of  their  address 
to  God  for  that  purpose;  the  one  was  justified,  the  other  was 
not. 

The  plea  of  the  Pharisee  to  this  end  consists  of  two  parts.  ( 1 ) 
That  he  had  fulfilled  the  condition  whereon  he  might  be  justi- 
fied. He  makes  no  mention  of  any  merit,  either  of  congruity, 
or  condignity.  Only  whereas  there  were  two  parts  of  God's 
covenant  then  with  the  church,  the  one  with  respect  to  the 
moral,  the  other  with  respect  to  the  ceremonial  law,  he  pleads 
the  observation  of  the  condition  of  it  in  both  parts,  which  he 
shows  in  instances  of  both  kinds;  only  he  adds  the  way  that 
he  took  to  further  him  in  this  obedience,  somewliat  beyond 
what  was  enjoined,  namely,  that  he  fasted  twice  in  the  week. 
For  when  men  begin  to  seek  for  rigliieousness,and  justification 
by  works,  they  quickly  think  their  best  reserve  lies  in  doing 
something  extraordinary  more  than  other  men,  and  more  in- 
deed than  is  required  of  them.  This  brought  forth  all  the  Phari- 
saical austerities  in  the  papacy.  Nor  can  it  be  said,  tiiat  all  this 
signified  nothing,  because  he  was  a  hypocrite  and  a  boaster; 
for  it  will  be  replied,  that  it  should  seem  all  are  so  who  seek 
for  justification  by  works.  For  our  Saviour  only  represents  one 
that  does  so;  neither  are  these  things  laid  in  bar  against  his 
justification,  but  only  that  he  exalted  himself  in  trusting  to  his 
own  righteousness.     (2)  In  an  ascription  of  all  that  he  did  to 


THE    EVANGELISTS,    CONSIDERED.  34-1 

God.  "  God,  I  thank  thee."  Ahhongh  he  did  all  this,  yet  he 
owned  the  aid  and  assistance  of  God  by  his  grace  in  it  all.  He 
esteemed  himself  much  to  differ  from  other  men,  but  ascribed 
it  not  to  himself,  tliat  so  he  did.  All  the  righteousness  and 
holiness  which  he  laid  claim  to,  he  ascribed  to  the  benignity 
and  goodness  of  God.  Wherefore  he  neither  pleaded  any  merit 
in  his  works,  nor  any  works  performed  in  his  own  strength, 
without  the  aid  of  grace.  All  that  he  pretends  is,  that  by  the 
grace  of  God  he  had  fulfilled  the  condition  of  the  covenant,  and 
thereon  expected  to  be  justified.  And  what  ever  words  men 
shall  be  pleased  to  make  use  of  in  their  vocal  prayers,  God  in- 
terprets their  minds,  according  to  what  they  trust  in,  as  to  their 
justification  before  him.  And  if  some  men  will  be  true  to  their 
own  principles,  this  is  the  prayer  which,  tnutalis  mutandis, 
they  ought  to  make.  .     • 

If  it  be  said,  that  it  is  charged  on  this  Pharisee,  that  he  trust- 
ed in  himself,  and  despised  others,  for  which  he  was  rejected,  I 
answer,  (1)  This  charge  respects  not  the  mind  of  the  person, 
but  the  genius  and  tendency  of  the  opinion.  The  persuasion 
of  justification  by  works,  includes  in  it  a  contempt  of  other 
men.  For  "  if  Abraham  had  been  justified  by  works,  lie  should 
have  had  whereof  to  glory."  (2)  Those  whom  he  despised, 
were  such  as  placed  their  whole  trust  in  grace  and  mercy;  as 
this  Publican.  It  were  to  be  wished,  that  all  others  of  the  same 
mind  did  not  so  also. 

The  issue  is  with  this  person,  that  he  was  not  justified;  nei- 
ther shall  any  one  ever  be  so  on  the  account  of  his  own  per- 
sonal righteousness.  For  our  Saviour  has  told  us,  '•'  that  when 
we  have  done  all,"  that  is,  when  we  have  the  testimony  of  our 
consciences  to  the  integrity  of  our  obedience,  instead  of  plead- 
ing it  to  our  justification,  we  should  say,  that  is,  really  judge 
and  profess,  that  we  are  "  unprofitable  servants,"  Luke  xvii.  10. 
As  the  Apostle  speaks,  "  I  know  nothing  by  myself,  yet  am  I 
not  thereby  justified,"  1  Cor.  iv,  4.  And  he  that  is  "an  un- 
profitable servant,"  and  has  nothing  to  trust  to  but  his  service, 
will  be  cast  out  of  the  presence  of  God,  Matt.  xxv.  30.  Where- 
fore on  the  best  of  our  obedience  to  confess  ourselves  "unpro- 
fitable servants,"  is  to  confess,  that  after  all,  in  ourselves,  we 
deserve  to  be  cast  out  of  the  presence  of  God. 

In  opposition  hereto,  the  state  and  prayer  of  the  Publican, 
under  the  same  design  of  seeking  justification  before  God,  are 
expressed.  And  the  outward  acts  of  his  person  are  mentioned, 
as  representing,  and  expressive  of  the  inward  frame  of  his 

29* 


342  TESTIMONIES    OUT    OF 

mind.  "  He  stood  afar  off;"  he  "did  not  so  much  as  hft  up 
his  eyes;"  he  "  smote  upon  his  breast."  All  of  them  represent 
a  person  desponding,  yea,  despairing  in  himself  This  is  the 
nature,  this  is  the  effect  of  that  conviction  of  sin,  which  we  be- 
fore asserted  to  be  antecedently  necessary  to  justification.  Dis- 
plicency,  sorrow,  sense  of  danger,  fear  of  wrath,  all  are  present 
with  him.  In  brief  he  declares  himself  guilty  before  God,  and 
his  mouth  stopped,  as  to  any  apology  or  excuse.  And  his 
prayer  is  a  sincere  application  of  his  soul,  to  sovereign  grace 
and  mercy,  for  a  deliverance  out  of  the  condition,  wherein  he 
was  by  reason  of  the  guilt  of  sin.  And  in  the  use  of  the  word 
lxa<sxoixai,  there  is  respect  had  to  a  propitiation.  In  the  whole 
of  his  address  there  is  contained  (1)  Self-condemnation  and 
abhorrence.  (2)  Displicency  and  sorrow  for  sin.  (3)  An  uni- 
versal renunciation  of  all  works  of  his  own,  as  any  conditions 
of  his  justification.  (4)  An  acknowledgment  of  his  sin,  guilt, 
and  misery.  And  this  is  all  that  on  our  part  is  required  to  jus- 
tification before  God,  excepting  that  faith  whereby  we  apply 
ourselves  to  him  for  deliverance. 

Some  make  a  weak  attempt  from  hence,  to  prove  that  justi- 
fication consists  wholly  in  the  remission  of  sin,  because  on  the 
prayer  of  the  Publican,  for  mercy  and  pardon,  he  is  said  to  be 
justified;  but  there  is  no  force  in  this  argument.  For  (1)  The 
whole  nature  of  justification  is  not  here  declared,  but  only  what 
is  required  on  our  part  thereto.  The  respect  of  it  to  the  medi- 
ation of  Christ,  was  not  yet  expressly  to  be  brought  to  light,  as 
was  showed  before.  (2)  Although  the  Publican  makes  his  ad- 
dress to  God,  under  a  deep  sense  of  the  guilt  of  sin,  yet  he 
prays  not  for  the  bare  pardon  of  sin,  but  for  all  that  sovereign 
mercy  or  grace,  which  God  provided  for  sinners.  (3)  The 
term  of  justification  must  have  the  same  sense,  when  applied 
to  the  Pharisee,  as  when  applied  to  the  Publican:  and  if  the 
meaning  of  it,  with  respect  to  the  Publican,  be,  that  he  was 
pardoned,  then  has  it  the  same  sense,  with  respect  to  the  Pha- 
risee, he  was  not  pardoned;  but  he  came  on  no  such  errand: 
he  came  to  be  justified,  not  pardoned;  nor  does  he  make  the 
least  mention  of  his  sin,  or  any  sense  of  it.  Wherefore  al- 
though the  pardon  of  sin  be  included  in  justification,  yet  to 
justify,  in  this  place,  has  respect  to  a  righteousness,  whereon  a 
man  is  declared  just  and  righteous,  wrapped  up  on  the  part  of 
the  Publican  in  the  sovereign  producing  cause,  the  mercy  of 
God. 

Some  few  testimonies  may  be  added  out  of  the  other  Evan- 


THE    EVANGELISTS,   CONSIDERED.  343 

gelists,  in  whom  they  abound.     "  As  many  as  received  him, 
to  them  gave  lie  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to 
them  that  believe  on  his  name,"  John  i.  12.     Faith  is  express- 
ed by  the  receiving  of  Christ.     For  to  receive  him,  and  to  be- 
lieve on  his  name,  are  the  same.     It  receives  him  as  set  forth 
of  God  to  be  a  propitiation  for  sin,  as  the  great  ordinance  of 
God,  for  the  recovery  and  salvation  of  lost  sinners.     Where- 
fore this  notion  of  faith  includes  in  it,  (1)  A  supposition  of  the 
proposal  and  tender  of  Christ  to  us,  for  some  end  and  purpose. 
(2)  That  this  proposal  is  made  to  us  in  the  promise  of  the  gos- 
pel.    Hence  as  we  are  said  to  receive  Christ,  we  are  said  to 
receive  the  promise  also.     (3)  The  end  for  which  the  Lord 
Christ  is  so  proposed  to  us,  in  the  promise  of  the  gospel;  and 
this  is  the  same  with  that  for  which  he  was  so  proposed  in  the 
first  promise,  namely,  the  recovery  and  salvation  of  lost  sin- 
ners.    (4)  That  in  the  tender  of  his  person,  there  is  a  tender 
made  of  all  the  fruits  of  his  mediation,  as  containing  the  way 
and  means  of  our  deliverance  from  sin,  and  acceptance  with 
God.     (5)  There  is  nothing  required  on  our  part  to  an  interest 
in  the  end  proposed,  but  receiving  of  him,  or  believing  on  his 
name.     (6)  Hereby  are  we  entitled  to  the  heavenly  inherit- 
ance; we  have  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  wherein  our 
adoption  is  asserted,  and  justification  included.     What  this  re- 
ceiving of  Christ  is,  and  wherein  it  consists,  has  been  declared 
before,  in  the  consideration  of  that  faith  whereby  we  are  justi- 
fied.    That  which  hence  we  argue  is,  that  there  is  no  more 
required  to  the  obtaining  of  a  right  and  title  to  the  heavenly 
inheritance  but  faith  alone,  in  the  name  of  Christ,  the  receiv- 
ing of  Christ,  as  the  ordinance  of  God  for  justification  and  sal- 
vation.    This  gives  us,  I  say,  our  original  riglit  thereto,  and 
therein  our  acceptance  with  God,  which  is  our  justification, 
though  more  be  required  to  the  actual  acquisition  and  posses- 
sion of  it.     It  is  said  indeed,  that  other  graces  and  works  are 
not  exclnded,  though  faith  alone  be  expressed.     But  every 
thing  which  is  not  a  receiving  of  Christ,  is  excluded.     It  is,  I 
say,  virtually  excluded,  because  it  is  not  of  the  nature  of  that 
which  is  required.     When  we  speak  of  that  whereby  we  see, 
we  exclude  no  other  member  from  being  a  part  of  the  body; 
but  we  exclude  all  but  the  eye  from  the  act  of  seeing.     And  if 
faith  be  required,  as  it  is  a  receiving  of  Christ,  every  grace  and 
duty  which  is  not  so,  is  excluded  as  to  the  end  of  justification. 
John  iii.  14 — 18.     "  And  as  Moses  lifted  np  the  serpent  in 
the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up;  that 


344        TESTIMONIES    OUT    OF    THE    EVANGELISTS,    CONSIDERED. 

whosoever  believeth  on  him,  should  not  perish,  but  have  eter- 
nal life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only- 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him,  should  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  God  sent  not  his  Son  into 
the  world  to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world,  through 
him,  might  be  saved.  He  that  believeth  on  him,  is  not  con- 
demned; but  he  that  believeth  not,  is  condemned  already,  be- 
cause he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten 
Son  of  God." 

I  shall  observe  only  a  few  things  from  these  words,  which 
in  themselves  convey  a  better  light  of  understanding  in  this 
mystery  to  the  minds  of  believers,  than  many  long  discourses 
of  some  learned  men.  (1)  It  is  of  the  justification  of  men,  and 
their  right  to  eternal  life  thereon,  that  our  Saviour  discourses. 
This  is  plain  in  ver.  18.  "  He  that  believeth  is  not  condemned, 
but  he  that  believeth  not,  is  condemned  already."  (2)  The 
means  of  attaining  this  condition  or  state  on  our  part,  is  be- 
lieving only,  as  it  is  three  times  positively  asserted,  without 
any  addition.  (3)  The  nature  of  this  faith  is  declared,  (1)  By 
its  object,  that  is,  Christ  himself  the  Son  of  God;  "  whosoever 
believeth  on  him,"  which  is  frequently  repeated.  (2)  The  es- 
pecial consideration,  wherein  he  is  the  object  of  faith  to  the 
justification  of  life;  and  that  is  as  he  is  the  ordinance  of  God, 
given,  sent,  and  proposed  from  the  love  and  grace  of  the  Fa- 
ther. "God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave;"  "God  sent 
his  Son."  (3)  The  especial  act  yet  included  in  the  type, 
whereby  the  design  of  God,  in  him,  is  illustrated.  For  this 
was  the  looking  to  the  brazen  serpent  lifted  up  in  the  wilder- 
ness, by  them  who  were  stung  with  fiery  serpents.  Hereto 
our  faith  in  Christ  to  justification  answers,  and  includes  a  trust 
in  him  alone  for  deliverance  and  rehef  This  is  the  way,  these 
are  the  only  causes  and  means  of  the  justification  of  condemn- 
ed sinners,  and  are  the  substance  of  all  that  we  plead  for. 

It  will  be  said  that  all  this  proves  not  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  to  us,  which  is  the  thing  principally  in- 
quired after:  but  if  notliing  be  required  on  our  part  to  justifi- 
cation, but  faith  acted  on  Christ,  as  the  ordinance  of  God  for 
our  recovery  and  salvation,  it  is  the  whole  of  what  we  plead 
for.  A  justification  by  the  remission  of  sins  alone,  without  a 
righteousness  giving  acceptance  with  God,  and  a  right  to  the 
heavenly  inheritance,  is  alien  to  the  Scripture  and  the  conmion 
notion  of  justification  amongst  men.  And  what  this  righteous- 
ness must  be,  upon  a  supposition  that  faith  only,  on  our  part,  is 


THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION,    ETC.  345 

required  to  a  participation  of  it,  is  sufficiently  declared  in  the 
words  wherein  Christ  himself  is  so  often  asserted,  as  the  object 
of  our  faith  to  that  purpose. 

Not  to  add  more  particular  testimonies,  which  are  multiplied 
to  the  same  purpose,  in  this  Evangelist,  the  sum  of  the  doc- 
trine declared  by  him,  is,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  the 
Lamb  of  God  which  takes  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  that  is, 
by  the  sacrifice  of  himself,  wherein  he  answered  and  fulfilled 
all  the  typical  sacrifices  of  the  law:  that  to  this  end  he  sancti- 
fied himself,  that  those,  who  believe,  might  be  sanctified,  or 
perfected  for  ever  by  his  own  offering  of  himself:  that  in  the 
gospel  he  is  proposed,  as  lifted  up  and  crucified  for  us,  as  bear- 
ing all  our  sins  on  his  body  on  the  tree;  that  by  faith  in  him, 
we  have  adoption,  justification,  freedom  from  judgment  and 
condemnation,  with  a  right  and  title  to  eternal  life;  that  those 
who  believe  not  are  condemned  already,  because  they  believe 
not  on  the  Son  of  God;  and  as  he  elsewhere  expresses  it, make 
God  a  liar,  in  that  they  believe  not  his  testimony,  namely,  that 
he  has  given  unto  us  eternal  life;  and  that  this  life  is  in  his  Son. 
Nor  does  he  any  where  make  mention  of  any  other  means, 
cause,  or  condition  of  justification  on  our  part,  but  faith  only, 
though  he  abounds  in  precepts  to  believers  for  love,  and  keep- 
ing the  commands  of  Christ.  And  this  faith  is  the  receiving  of 
Christ,  in  the  sense  newly  declared.  And  this  is  the  substance 
of  the  Christian  faith  in  this  matter;  which  ofitimes  we  rather 
obscure  than  illnstrate,  by  debating  the  consideration  of  any 
thing  in  our  justification,  but  the  grace  and  love  of  God,  the 
person  and  mediation  of  Christ,  with  faith  in  them. 


CHAPTER  XVIIL 

THE     NATURE     OF    JUSTIFICATION     AS     DECLARED    IN    THE     EPISTLES     OF 
PAUL,    ESPECIALLY    THAT   TO    THE    ROMANS,    CHAP.    III. 

That  the  way  and  manner  of  our  justification  before  God, 
with  all  the  causes  and  means  of  it,  are  designedly  declared  by 
the  Apostle  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  chap.  iii.  4,  5,  as  also 
vindicated  from  objections,  so  as  to  render  his  discourse  thereon 
the  proper  seat  of  this  doctrine,  and  whence  it  is  principally  to 


346  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION   AS    DECLARED 

be  learned,  cannot  modestly  be  denied.  The  late  exceptions 
of  some,  that  this  doctrine  of  jnstification  by  faith,  withont 
works,  is  fonnd  only  in  the  writings  of  Panl,  and  that  his  writ- 
ings are  obscure  and  intricate,  are  both  false  and  scandalous  to 
Christianity,  so  that  in  this  place  we  shall  not  afford  them  the 
least  consideration.  He  wrote  "  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  And  as  all  the  matter  delivered  by  him  was  sacred 
truth,  which  immediately  requires  our  faith  and  obedience,  so 
the  way  and  manner  wherein  he  declared  it,  was  such  as  the 
Holy  Ghost  judged  most  expedient  for  the  edification  of  the 
church.  And  as  he  said  hiiuself  with  confidence,  that  if  the 
gospel  which  he  preached,  and  as  it  was  preached  by  him, 
though  accounted  by  them  foolishness,  was  hid,  so  that  they 
could  not  understand,  norcomprehend  the  mystery  of  it,  it  was 
"hid  to  them  that  are  lost;"  so  we  may  say,  that  if  what  he 
delivers  in  particular  concerning  our  justification  before  God, 
seems  obscure,  difficult,  or  perplexed  to  ns,  it  is  from  our  preju- 
dices, corrupt  aftections,  or  weakness  of  understanding  at  best, 
not  able  to  comprehend  the  glory  of  this  mystery  of  the  grace 
of  God  in  Christ,  and  not  from  any  defect  in  his  way,  and  man- 
ner of  the  revelation  of  it.  Rejecting  therefore  all  such  per- 
verse insinuations,  in  a  due  sense  of  our  own  weakness,  and 
acknowledgment  that  at  best  "  we  know  but  in  part,"  we  shall 
humbly  inquire  into  the  blessed  revelation  of  this  great  mystery 
of  the  justification  of  a  sinner  before  God,  as  by  him  declared 
in  those  chapters  of  his  glorious  Epistle  to  the  Romans;  and  I 
shall  do  it  with  all  possible  brevity,  so  as  not  on  this  occasion 
to  repeat  what  has  been  already  spoken,  or  to  anticipate  what 
may  be  spoken  in  a  more  convenient  place. 

The  first  thing  he  does,  is  to  prove  all  men  to  be  under  sin, 
and  to  be  guilty  before  God.  This  he  gives  as  the  conclusion 
of  his  preceding  discourse,  from  chap.  i.  18,  or  what  he  had 
evidently  evinced  thereby,  chap.  iii.  19,23.  Hereon  an  inquiry 
arises,  how  any  of  them  come  to  be  justified  before  God.  And 
whereas  justification  is  a  sentence  upon  the  consideration  of  a 
righteousness,  his  grand  inquiry  is,  what  that  righteousness  is, 
on  the  consideration  whereof  a  man  may  be  so  justified.  And 
concerning  this,  he  affirms  expressly  that  it  is  not  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  law,  nor  of  the  works  of  it,  whereby  what  he  in- 
tends has  been  in  part  before  declared,  and  will  be  further  mani- 
fested in  the  process  of  our  discourse.  Wherefore  in  general  he 
declares,  that  the  righteousness  whereby  we  are  justified,  is  the 
"righteousness  of  God,"  in  opposition  to  any  righteousness  of 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,   ETC.  347 

our  own,  chap.  i.  17:  iii.  21,  22.  And  he  describes  this  right- 
eousness of  God  by  three  properties.  (1)  That  it  is  ;t«?'s  "o^s, 
"  without  the  law,"  ver.  21,  separated  in  all  its  concerns  from 
the  law;  not  attainable  by  it,  nor  any  works  of  it;  which  they 
have  no  influence  upon.  It  is  neither  our  obedience  to  the  law, 
nor  attainable  thereby.  Nor  can  any  expression  more  separate 
and  exclude  the  works  of  obedience  to  the  law,  from  any  con- 
cernment in  it,  than  this  doth.  Wherefore,  what  ever  is,  or  can 
be  performed  by  ourselves  in  obedience  to  the  law,  is  rejected 
from  any  interest  in  this  righteousness  of  God,  or  the  procure- 
ment of  it  to  be  made  ours.  (2)  That  yet  it  is  witnessed  unto 
by  the  law,  ver.  21.  "  The  law  and  the  prophets."  The  Apos- 
tle by  this  distinction  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  into 
the  law  and  the  prophets,  manifests  that  by  the  law  he  under- 
stands the  books  of  Moses;  and  in  them,  testimony  is  given 
to  this  righteousness  of  God,  four  ways. 

(1)  By  a  declaration  of  the  causes  of  the  necessity  of  it  to 
our  justification.  This  is  done  in  the  accoimt  given  of  our 
apostasy  from  God,  of  the  loss  of  his  image,  and  the  state  of 
sin  that  ensued  thereon.  For  hereby  an  end  was  put  to  all 
possibility  and  hope  of  acceptance  with  God,  by  our  own  per- 
sonal righteousness.  By  the  entrance  of  sin,  our  own  right- 
eousness went  out  of  the  world;  so  that  there  must  be  another 
righteousness  prepared  and  approved  of  God,  and  called  the 
righteousness  of  God,  in  opposition  to  our  own,  or  all  relation 
of  love  and  favour  between  God  and  man,  must  cease  for  ever. 

(2)  In  the  way  of  recovery  from  this  state,  generally  de- 
clared in  the  first  promise  of  the  blessed  seed,  by  whom  this 
righteousness  of  God  was  to  be  wrought  and  introduced;  for 
he  alone  was  to  "make  an  end  of  sin,  and  to  bring  in  ever- 
lasting righteousness,"  Dan.  ix.  24,  that  righteousness  of  God, 
that  should  be  the  means  of  the  justification  of  the  church  in 
all  ages,  and  under  all  dispensations. 

(3)  By  stopping  up  tlie  way  to  any  other  righteousness 
through  the  threatenings  of  the  law,  and  that  curse  which 
every  transgression  of  ii,  was  attended  with.  Hereby  it  was 
plainly  and  lully  declared,  that  there  must  be  such  a  righteous- 
ness provided  for  our  justification  before  men,  as  would  answer 
and  remove  that  curse. 

(4)  In  the  prefiguration  and  representation  of  that  only  way 
and  means,  whereby  this  righteousness  of  God  was  to  be 
wrought.  This  it  did  in  all  its  sacrifices,  especially  in  the 
great  anniversary  sacrifice  on   the  day  of  expiation,  wherein 


348  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

all  the  sins  of  the  church  were  laid  on  the  head  of  the  sacrifice, 
and  so  carried  away.  (3)  He  describes  it  by  the  only  way  of 
our  participation  of  it,  the  only  means  on  our  part  of  the  com- 
munication of  it  to  us.  And  this  is  by  faith  alone.  "  The 
righteousness  of  God,  which  is  by  the  faith  of  Christ  Jesus, 
unto  all,  and  upon  all  them  that  believe;  for  there  is  no  differ- 
ence," ver.  22.  Faith  in  Christ  Jesus  is  so  the  only  way  and 
means,  whereby  this  righteousness  of  God  comes  upon  us,  or 
is  communicated  to  us,  that  it  is  so  to  all  that  have  this  faith, 
and  only  to  them,  and  that  without  difference  on  the  consider- 
ation of  any  thing  else  besides.  And  although  faith  taken  ab- 
solutely, may  be  used  in  various  senses,  yet  as  thus  specified 
and  limited,  the  faith  of  Christ  Jesus,  or  as  he  calls  it,  "  the 
faith  that  is  in  me,"  Acts,  xxvi.  18,  can  intend  nothing  but  the 
reception  of  him,  and  trust  in  him,  as  the  ordinance  of  God  for 
righteousness  and  salvation. 

This  description  of  the  righteousness  of  God  revealed  in  the 
gospel,  which  the  Apostle  asserts  as  the  only  means  and  cause 
of  our  justification  before  God,  with  the  only  way  of  its  parti- 
cipation and  communication  to  us  by  the  faith  of  Christ  Jesus, 
fully  confirms  the  truth  we  plead  for.  For  if  the  righteousness 
wherewith  we  must  be  justified  before  God  be  not  our  own, 
but  the  righteousness  of  God,  as  these  things  are  directly  op- 
posed, Phil.  iii.  9,  and  the  only  way  whereby  it  comes  upon 
us,  or  we  are  made  partakers  of  it,  is  by  the  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ,  then  our  own  personal  inherent  righteousness  or  obedi- 
ence, has  no  interest  in  our  justification  before  God;  which 
argument  is  unanswerable,  nor  is  the  force  of  it  to  be  waved 
by  any  distinctions  whatever,  if  we  keep  our  hearts  to  a  due 
reverence  for  the  authority  of  God  in  his  word. 

Having  fully  proved,  that  no  men  living  have  any  righteous- 
ness of  their  own,  whereby  they  may  be  justified,  but  are  all 
shut  up  under  the  guilt  of  sin;  and  having  declared,  that  there 
is  a  righteousness  of  God  now  fully  revealed  in  the  gospel, 
whereby  alone  we  may  be  so;  leaving  all  men  in  themselves 
to  their  own  lot,  in  as  much  as  "  all  have  sinned  and  come 
short  of  the  glory  of  God,"  he  proceeds  to  declare  the  nature 
of  our  justification  before  God,  in  all  the  causes  of  it.  Ver. 
24 — 26.  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the  re- 
demption that  is  in  Jesus  Christ,  whom  God  hath  set  forth  to 
be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his 
righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins,  that  are  past,  through 
the  forbearance  of  God.     To  declare,  I  say  at  this  time,  his 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,   ETC.  349 

righteousness,  that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  them 
that  beUeve  in  Jesus." 

Here  it  is,  that  we  may,  and  ought,  if  any  where,  to  expect 
the  interest  of  our  personal  obedience  under  some  qualification 
or  other,  in  our  justification,  to  be  declared.  For  if  it  should 
be  supposed  (which  yet  it  cannot  with  any  pretence  of  reason) 
that  in  the  foregoing  discourse,  the  Apostle  had  excluded  only 
the  works  of  the  law,  as  absolutely  perfect,  or  as  wrought  in 
our  own  strength  without  the  aid  of  grace,  or  as  meritorious; 
yet  having  generally  excluded  all  works  from  our  justification, 
ver.  20,  without  distinction  or  limitation,  it  might  well  be  ex- 
pected, and  ought  to  have  been  so,  that  upon  the  full  declara- 
tion which  he  gives  us  of  the  nature  and  way  of  our  justifica- 
tion in  all  the  causes  of  it,  he  should  have  assigned  the  place, 
and  consideration  which  our  own  personal  righteousness  had 
in  our  justification  before  God;  the  first  or  second,  or  continu- 
ation of  it,  somewhat  or  other;  or  at  least,  made  some  mention 
of  it,  under  the  qualification  of  gracious,  sincere,  or  evangeli- 
cal, that  it  might  not  seem  to  be  absolutely  excluded.  It  is 
plain  the  Apostle  thought  of  no  such  thing,  nor  was  at  all  soli- 
citous about  any  reflection  that  might  be  made  on  his  doctrine, 
as  though  it  overthrew  the  necessity  of  our  own  obedience. 
Take  in  the  consideration  of  the  Apostle's  design,  with  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  context,  and  the  argument  from  his  utter 
silence  about  our  own  personal  righteousness  in  our  justifica- 
tion before  God,  is  unanswerable.  But  this  is  not  all;  we  shall 
find  in  our  progress,  that  it  is  expressly  and  directly  excluded 
by  him. 

All  unprejudiced  persons  must  needs  think  that  no  words 
could  be  used  more  express  and  emphatical,  to  secure  the  whole 
of  our  justification  to  the  free  grace  of  God,  through  the  blood, 
or  mediation  of  Christ,  wherein  it  is  faith  alone  that  gives  us 
an  interest,  than  these  used  here  by  the  Apostle.  And  for  my 
part,  I  shall  only  say,  that  I  know  not  how  to  express  myself 
in  this  matter,  in  words  and  terms  more  express  or  significant 
of  the  conception  of  my  mind.  And  if  we  could  all  but  sub- 
scribe the  answer  here  given  by  the  Apostle;  how,  by  what 
means,  on  what  grounds,  or  by  what  causes,  are  we  justified 
before  God,  namely,  that  we  are  "justified  freely  by  his  grace, 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  God  hath 
set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,"  &c. 
there  might  be  an  end  of  this  controversy. 

But  the  principal  passages  of  this  testimony  must  be  distinct- 

30 


350  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

]y  considered.  (1)  The  principal  efficient  cause  is  first  expressed 
with  a  pecuhar  emphasis;  "  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace." 
God  is  the  principal  efficient  cause  of  our  justification,  and  his 
grace  is  the  only  moving  cause  thereof.  1  shall  not  stay  upon 
the  exception  of  those  of  the  Roman  church,  namely,  that  by 
fy;  xa^i-tt,  dutou  whicli  their  translation  renders  per  gratiarn  Dei, 
the  internal  inherent  grace  of  God,  which  they  make  the  for- 
mal cause  of  justification,  is  intended.  For  they  have  nothing 
to  prove  it,  but  that  which  overthrows  it;  namely,  that  it  is 
added  to  Scopsar  "freely,"  which  v/ere  needless,  if  it  signify  the 
free  grace  or  favour  of  God.  For  both  these  expressions  gra- 
tis per  gratiam,  "  freely  by  grace,"  are  put  together  to  give 
the  greater  emphasis  to  this  assertion,  wherein  the  whole  of 
our  justification  is  vindicated  to  the  free  grace  of  God;  so  far 
as  they  are  distinguishable,  the  one  denotes  the  principle  from 
whence  our  justification  proceeds,  namely,  grace;  and  the 
other,  the  manner  of  its  operation,  it  works  freely.  Besides, 
the  "  grace  of  God"  in  this  subject,  every  where  constantly  sig- 
nifies his  goodness,  love,  and  favour,  as  has  been  undeniably 
proved  by  many.  See  Rom.  v.  15.  Eph.  ii.  4,  8,  9.  2  Tim.  i.  9. 
Tit.  iii.  4,  5. 

Being  justified  ^co^sar,  so  the  LXX.  render  the  Hebrew  par- 
ticle ojn  '<  withoiU  price,"  without  merit,  without  cause;  and 
sometimes  it  is  used  for  "  without  end,"  that  is,  what  is  done 
in  vain;  as  Sw^sav  is  used  by  tlie  Apostle,  Gal.  ii.  21,  without 
price  or  reward,  Gen.  xxix.  15.  Exod.  xxi.  22.  2  Kings  xxiv. 
25;  without  cause  or  merit  or  any  means  of  procurement,  1 
Sam.  xix.  5.  2  Sam.  xxiv,  24.  Psal.  Ixix.  4;  cii.  In  this  sense 
it  is  rendered  by  Sco^fav,  John  xv.  25.  The  design  of  the  word 
is  to  exclude  all  consideration  of  any  thing  in  us  that  should  be 
the  cause  or  condition  of  our  justification.  Xa^ii.fc/vour,  abso- 
lutely considered,  may  have  respect  to  somewhat  in  him  to- 
wards whom  it  is  showed;  so  it  is  said  that  "Joseph  found 
grace,"  or  favour  xH''^^  iw  tlie  eyes  of  Potiphar,  Gen.  xxix.  4; 
but  he  foinid  it  not  Su^iav,  "without  any  consideration"  or 
cause;  for  he  saw  that  the  I^ord  was  with  him  and  made  all 
that  he  did  to  prosper  in  his  hand,  ver.  3.  But  no  words  can  be 
found  out  to  free  our  justification  before  God  from  all  respect 
to  any  thing  in  ourselves,  (but  only  what  is  added  expressly 
as  the  means  of  its  participation  on  our  part,  "through  faith  in 
his  blood,")  more  emphatical  than  these  here  used  by  the 
Apostle;  Soj^iav  Tiri  avtov  xH'-''^''}  "freely  by  his  grace."  And  to 
those  who  do  not  admit  this  as  exclusive  of  all  works  or  obedi- 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  351 

ence  of  our  own,  of  all  conditions,  preparations  and  merit,  I  shall 
despair  of  ever  expressing  my  conceptions  about  it  intelligibly. 

Having  asserted  this  righteousness  of  God  as  the  cause  and 
means  of  our  justification  before  him,  in  opposition  to  all  right- 
eousness of  our  own;  and  declared  the  cause  of  the  communi- 
cation of  it  to  us  on  the  part  of  God,  to  be  mere  free  sovereign 
grace,  the  means  on  our  part  whereby  according  to  the  ordina- 
tion of  God,  we  receive  or  are  really  made  partakers  of  that 
righteousness  of  God  whereon  we  are  justified,  is  by  faith;  6ta 
ftTl^  rftarfcoj  iv  av-tov  ac/uaft. ;  that  is  by  faith  alone.  Nothing  else 
is  proposed,  nothing  else  required  to  this  end.  It  is  replied, 
that  there  is  no  intimation  that  it  is  by  faith  alone,  or  that  faith  is 
asserted  to  be  the  means  of  our  justification  exclusively  to  other 
graces  or  works.  But  there  is  such  an  exclusion  directly  in- 
cluded in  the  description  given  of  that  faith  whereby  we  are 
justified  with  respect  to  its  especial  object  "  by  faith  in  his 
blood."  For  faith  respecting  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  that 
whereby  propitiation  was  made  for  sin,  in  which  respect  alone, 
the  Apostle  affirms  that  we  are  justified  through  faith,  admits 
of  no  association  with  any  other  graces  or  duties.  Neither  is 
it  any  part  of  their  nature  to  fix  on  the  blood  of  Christ,  for  jus- 
tification before  God :  wherefore  they  are  all  here  directly  ex- 
cluded. And  those  who  think  otherwise,  may  try  how  they 
can  introduce  them  into  this  context  without  an  evident  cor- 
rupting of  it,  and  perverting  of  its  sense.  Neither  will  the 
other  evasion  yield  our  adversaries  the  least  relief:  namely, 
that  by  faith  not  the  single  grace  of  faith  is  intended,  but  the 
whole  obedience  required  in  the  new  covenant,  faith  and  works 
together.  For  as  all  works  whatever,  as  our  works,  are  ex- 
cluded in  the  declaration  of  the  causes  of  our  justification  on 
the  part  of  God,,  "  freely  by  his  grace,"  by  virtue  of  that  great 
rule,  Rom.  xi.  G,  "if  it  be  of  grace,  then  no  more  of  works, 
otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace;"  so  the  determination  of  the 
object  of  faith  in  its  act  or  duty  whereon  we  are  justified, 
namely  the  blood  of  Christ,  is  absolutely  exclusive  of  all  works 
from  an  interest  in  that  duty.  For  whatever  looks  to  the  blood 
of  Christ,  for  justification,  is  faith  and  nothing  else.  And  as 
for  the  calling  of  it  a  single  act  or  duty,  I  refer  the  reader  to 
our  preceding  discourse  about  the  nature  of  justifying  faith. 

Three  things  the  Apostle  infers  from  the  declaration  he  had 
made  of  the  nature  and  causes  of  our  justification  before  God,  all 
of  them  further  illustrating  the  meaning  and  sense  of  his  words. 

1.  That  boasting  is  excluded;  Rom.  xi.  27.  Apparent  it  is  from 


352 


THE   NATURE    OF   JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 


hence,  and  from  what  he  affirms  concerning  Abraham,  chap, 
iv.  2,  that  a  great  part  at  least,  of  the  controversy  he  had 
about  justification,  was  whether  it  admitted  of  any  xavxyja^?  or 
xavxyifia  boasting,  in  those  that  were  justified.  And  it  is  known 
that  the  Jews  placed  all  their  hopes  in  those  things  whereof 
they  thought  they  could  boast,  namely  their  privileges  and 
their  righteousness.  But  from  the  declaration  made  of  the  na- 
ture and  causes  of  justification,  the  Apostle  infers  that  all  boast- 
ing whatever  is  utterly  shut  out  of  doors;  itixXnoBri.  Boasting, 
in  our  language  is  the  name  of  a  vice;  and  is  never  used  in  a 
good  sense.  But  xavxn^i'i  and  xavx-ni^^  the  words  used  by  the 
Apostle,  are  of  an  indifferent  signification,  and  as  they  are  ap- 
plied may  denote  a  virtue  as  well  as  a  vice.  So  they  do,  Heb,  iii.  6. 

But  always,  and  in  all  places,  they  respect  something  that  is 
peculiar  in  or  to  them,  to  whom  they  are  ascribed.  Wherever 
any  thing  is  ascribed  to  one  and  not  to  another,  with  respect  to 
any  good  end,  there  is  fundamentum  x<xvxri^i^<.-,  a  foundation 
for  boasting.  All  this  says  the  Apostle  in  the  matter  of  our 
justification  is  utterly  excluded.  But  wherever  respect  is  had 
to  any  condition  or  qualification  in  one  more  than  another, 
especially  if  it  be  of  works,  it  gives  a  ground  of  boasting,  as 
he  affirms,  chap,  iv,  2.  And  it  appears  from  comparing  that 
verse  with  this,  that  wherever  there  is  any  influence  of  our 
own  works  upon  our  justification,  there  is  a  ground  of  boast- 
ing; but  in  evangelical  justification,  no  such  boasting  in  any 
kind  can  be  admitted.  Wherefore  there  is  no  place  for  works 
in  our  justification  before  God;  for  if  there  were,  it  is  impossi- 
ble but  that  a  xavxrjfj^a  in  one  kind  or  other  before  God  or  man 
must  be  admitted. 

2.  He  infers  a  general  conclusion,  "that  a  man  is  justified 
by  faith  without  the  works  of  the  law,"  verse  28.  What  is 
meant  by  the  "  law,"  and  what  by  the  "  works  of  the  law"  in 
this  discourse  of  the  Apostle  about  our  justification,  has  been 
before  declared.  And  if  we  are  justified  freely  through  faith 
in  the  blood  of  Christ,  that  faith  which  has  the  propitiation  of 
Christ  for  its  especial  object,  or  as  it  has  so,  can  take  no  other 
grace  nor  duty  into  partnership  with  itself  therein:  and  being 
so  justified  that  all  such  boasting  is  excluded  as  necessarily  re- 
sults from  any  differencing  graces  or  works  in  ourselves,  where- 
in all  the  works  of  the  law  are  excluded,  it  is  certain  that  it  is 
by  faith  alone  in  Christ  that  we  are  justified.  All  works  are 
not  only  excluded,  but  the  way  to  their  return  is  so  shut  up  by 
the  method  of  the  Apostle'sdiscourse,  that  all  the  reinforcements 


IN   THE    EPISTLES    OP    PAUL,    ETC.  353 

which  the  wit  of  man  can  give  to  them,  will  never  introduce 
them  into  our  justification  before  God. 

3.  He  asserts  from  hence,  that  "  we  do  not  mai^e  void  the 
law  through  grace,"  but  establish  it,  verse  31.  How  this  is 
done,  and  how  alone  it  can  be  done,  has  been  before  declared. 

This  is  the  substance  of  the  resolution  the  Apostle  gives  to 
that  great  inquiry,  how  a  guilty  convinced  sinner  may  come  to 
be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God.  The  sovereign  grace  of  God, 
the  mediation  of  Christ,  and  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  are  all 
that  he  requires  thereto.  And  whatever  notions  men  may 
have  about  justification  in  other  respects,  it  will  not  be  safe  to 
venture  on  any  other  resolution  of  this  case  and  inquiry;  nor 
are  we  wiser  than  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Romans,  Chap.  iv. — In  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  chapter 
he  confirms  what  he  had  before  doctrinally  declared,  by  a  sin- 
gle instance;  and  this  was  of  the  justification  of  Abraham,  the 
father  of  the  faithful,  whose  justification  is  proposed  as  the  pat- 
tern of  ours,  as  he  expressly  declares,  verses  22 — 24.  And  some 
few  things  I  shall  observe  on  tliis  instance  in  our  passage  to 
the  fifth  verse;  where  I  shall  fix  our  discourse. 

1.  He  denies  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  works,  verse  2. 
And  (1)  These  works  were  not  those  of  the  Jewish  law,  which 
alone  some  pretend  to  be  excluded  from  our  justification  in 
this  place.  For  they  were  the  works  he  performed  some  hun- 
dreds of  years  before  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai:  wherefore 
they  are  the  works  of  his  moral  obedience  to  God  that  are  in- 
tended. (2)  Those  works  must  be  understood  which  Abraham 
had  then,  when  he  is  said  to  be  justified,  in  the  testimony  pro- 
duced to  that  purpose;  but  the  works  that  Abraham  then  had, 
were  works  of  righteousness,  performed  in  faith  and  love  to 
God,  works  of  new  obedience  under  the  conduct  and  aids  of 
the  Spirit  of  God;  works  required  in  the  covenant  of  grace. 
These  are  the  works  excluded  from  the  justification  of  Abra- 
ham. And  these  things  are  plain, exjn'ess,  and  evident,  not  to 
be  eluded  by  any  disiiiictions  or  evasions.  All  Abraham's 
evangelical  works  are  expressly  excluded  from  his  justification 
before  God. 

2.  He  proves  by  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  declaring  the 
nature  and  grounds  of  the  justification  of  Abraham,  that  he 
was  justified  no  other  way,  but  that  which  he  had  before  de- 
clared, namely  by  grace  tiirougli  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  verse  3. 
"Abraham  believed  God  (in  tlie  promise  of  Christ  and  his  me- 
diation) and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness,"  ver.  3. 

30* 


354  THE    NATURE     OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

He  was  justified  by  faith  in  the  way  before  described  (for 
other  justification  by  faith  there  is  none)  in  opposition  to  all 
his  own  works,  and  personal  righteousness  thereby. 

3.  From  the  same  testimony  he  declares  how  he  came  to  be 
partaker  of  that  righteousness  whereon  he  was  justified  before 
God,  which  was  by  imputation;  it  was  "counted"  or  imputed 
"■  to  him  for  righteousness."  The  nature  of  the  imputation  has 
been  before  declared. 

4.  The  especial  nature  of  this  imputation,  namely  that  it  is 
of  grace  without  respect  to  works,  he  asserts  and  proves,  verse 
4,  from  what  is  contrary  thereto.  "  Now  to  him  that  worketh 
is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt."  Where 
works  are  of  any  consideration,  there  is  no  room  for  that  kind 
of  imputation  whereby  Abraham  was  justified,  for  it  was  a 
gracious  imputation,  and  that  is  not  of  what  is  our  own  ante- 
cedently thereto,  but  what  is  made  our  own  by  that  imputation. 
For  what  is  our  own  cannot  be  imputed  to  us  in  a  way  of 
grace,  but  only  reckoned  ours  in  a  way  of  debt.  'J'hat  which 
is  our  own  with  all  the  effects  of  it,  is  due  to  us.  And  therefore 
they  who  plead  that  faith  itself  is  imputed  to  us,  to  give  some 
countenance  to  an  imputation  of  grace,  say  it  is  imputed  not 
for  what  it  is,  for  then  it  would  be  reckoned  of  debt,  but  for 
what  it  is  not.     So  Socinus,  Cum  fides  imputatnr  nobis  pro 

justitia,  ideo  imputatur  quia  nee  ipsa  fides  justitia  est,  nee 
vere  in  seeamcontinet,  De  Servat.  part.  iv.  cap.  2;  which  kind 
of  imputation  being  indeed  only  a  false  imgination,  we  have 
before  disproved.  But  all  works  are  inconsistent  with  that 
imputation  whereby  Abraham  was  justified.  It  is  otherwise 
with  him  that  works,  so  as  thereon  to  be  justified,  than  it  was 
with  him.  Yea,  say  some,  all  works  that  are  meritorious,  that 
are  performed  with  an  opinion  of  merit,  that  make  the  reward 
to  be  of  debt,  are  excluded,  but  other  works  are  not.  This 
distinction  is  not  learned  from  the  Apostle.  For  according  to 
him,  if  this  be  merit  and  meritorious,  that  the  reward  be  reck- 
oned of  debt,  then  all  works  in  justification  are  so.  For  with- 
out distinction  or  limitation  he  affirms,  that  "unto  him  that 
worketh,  the  reward  is  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt." 
He  does  not  exclude  some  sort  of  works,  or  works  in  some 
sense,  because  they  would  make  the  reward  ofdebt,  but  affirms 
that  all  would  do  so  to  the  exclusion  of  gracious  imputation. 
For  if  the  foundation  of  imputation  be  in  ourselves,  imputation 
by  grace  is  excluded.  In  the  fifth  verse  the  sum  of  the  Apos- 
tle's doctrine,  which  he  had  contended  for,  and  what  he  had 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  355 

proved,  is  expressed.  "But  to  liini  that  worketh  not,  but  be- 
lieveth  on  him  that  justifietli  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted 
for  righteousness."  It  is  granted  on  all  hands,  that  the  close 
of  the  verse  "  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness,"  expresses 
the  justification  of  the  person  intended.  He  is  justified,  and 
the  way  of  it  is,  "  his  faith  is  counted"  or  imputed.  Wherefore 
the  foregoing  words  declare  the  subject  of  justification,  and  its 
qualification,  or  the  description  of  the  person  to  be  justified, 
with  all  that  is  required  on  his  part  thereto. 

And  first  it  is  said  of  him,  that  he  is,  6  nf]  spya^ojufj/oj;  "  who 
worketh  not."  It  is  not  required  to  his  justification  that  he 
should  not  work,  that  he  should  not  perform  any  duties  of  obe- 
dience to  God  in  any  kind,  which  is  working.  For  every  per- 
son in  the  world  is  always  obliged  to  all  duties  of  obedience, 
according  to  the  light  and  knowledge  of  the  will  of  God,  the 
means  whereof  is  afforded  to  him.  But  the  expression  is  to  be 
limited  by  the  subject  matter  treated  of.  He  wlio  worketh  not, 
with  respect  to  justification;  though  not  the  design  of  the  per- 
son, but  the  nature  of  the  thing  is  intended.  To  say,  "he  who 
worketh  not  is  justified"  through  believing,  is  to  say  that  his 
works  whatever  they  be,  have  no  influence  on  his  justification, 
nor  has  God  in  justifying  of  him  any  respect  to  them.  Where- 
fore he  alone  who  worketh  not,  is  the  subject  of  justification, 
the  person  to  be  justified;  that  is,  God  considers  no  man's 
works,  no  man's  duties  of  obedience  in  his  justification;  seeing 
we  are  justified  "  freely  by  his  grace."  And  when  God  affirms 
expressly,  that  he  justifies  him  "who  worketh  not,'"  and  that, 
"  freely  by  his  grace,"  I  cannot  understand  what  place  our 
works  or  duties  of  obedience,  can  have  in  our  justification. 
For  why  should  we  trouble  ourselves  to  discover  of  what  con- 
sideration they  may  be  in  our  justification  before  God,  when 
he  himself  affirms,  that  they  are  of  none  at  all?  Neither  are 
the  words  capable  of  any  evading  interpretation.  "  He  that 
worketh  not,"  is  "  he  that  worketh  not,"  let  men  say  what  they 
please,  and  distinguish  as  long  as  they  will.  And  it  is  a  boldness 
not  to  be  justified,  for  any  to  rise  up  in  opposition  to  such  ex- 
press divine  testimonies,  however  they  may  be  harnessed  with 
philosophical  notions  and  arguings,  which  are  but  as  thorns  and 
briars,  which  the  word  of  God  will  pass  through  and  consume. 

But  the  Apostle  further  adds  in  the  description  of  the  sub- 
ject of  justification,  that  God  "  justifieth  the  ungodly."  This  is 
that  expression  which  has  stirred  up  so  much  wrath  amongst 
many,  and  on  account  whereof,  some  seem  to  be  much  dis- 


356 


THE    NATURE    OF   JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 


pleased  with  the  Apostle  himself.  If  any  other  person  dare  but 
say  that  "  God  jiistifieth  the  ungodly,"  he  is  presently  reflected 
on,  as  one  that  by  his  doctrine  would  overthrow  the  necessity 
of  godliness,  holiness,  obedience,  or  good  works.  For  what 
need  can  tliere  be  of  any  of  them,  if  God  justifies  the  "un- 
godly?" Howbeit  this  is  a  periphrasis  of  God  that  he  is 
o  dtxatu^v  tov  asiiir;  "  he  that  justifietli  the  ungodly."  This  is  his 
prerogative  and  property,  as  such  will  he  be  believed  in  and 
worshipped,  which  adds  weight  and  emphasis  to  the  expres- 
sion. And  we  must  not  forego  this  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  let  men  be  as  angry  as  they  please. 

But  the  diflerence  is  about  the  meaning  of  the  words.  Some 
say,  "  those  who  formerly  were  ungodly,  not  those  who  con- 
tinue ungodly  when  they  are  justified."  And  this  is  most  true. 
All  that  are  justified  were  before  ungodly;  and  all  that  are 
justified  are  at  the  same  instant  made  godly.  But  the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  they  are  godly  or  ungodly  antecedently  in  any 
moment  of  time  to  their  justification;  if  they  are  considered  as 
godly,  and  are  so  indeed,  then  the  Apostle's  words  are  not  true, 
''that  God  justifieth  the  ungodly;"  for  the  contradictory  pro- 
position is  true,  "  God  justifieth  none  but  the  godly."  For 
these  propositions,  God  justifieth  the  ungodly,  and  God  justi- 
fieth none  but  the  godly,  are  contradictory. 

Wherefore,  although  in  and  with  the  justification  of  a  sinner, 
he  is  made  godly,  for  he  is  endowed  with  that  "faith  which 
purifieth  the  heart,"  and  is  a  vital  principle  of  all  obedience, 
and  the  conscience  is  purged  from  dead  works  by  the  blood  of 
Christ;  yet  antecedently  to  his  justification  he  is  ungodly  and 
considered  as  ungodly,  as  one  that  "  worketh  not,"  as  one 
whose  duties  and  obedience  contribute  nothing  to  his  justifica- 
tion. As  he  "  worketh  not,"  all  works  are  excluded  from 
being  the  causa  per  quam;  and  as  he  is  "ungodly,"  from 
being  the  causa  sine  qua  non  of  his  Justification. 

The  qualification  of  the  subject,  or  the  means  on  the  part 
of  the  person  to  be  justified,  and  whereby  he  becomes  actually 
so,  is  faith  or, believing.  "  But  believeth  on  him  who  justifieth 
the  ungodly."  That  is,  it  is  taitli  alone.  For  it  is  the  faith  of 
him  who  worketh  not;  and  not  only  so,  but  its  especial  object, 
God  as  justifying  the  ungodly,  is  exclusive  of  the  concomitan- 
cy  of  any  works  whatever.  This  is  faith  alone,  or  it  is  impos- 
sible to  express  faith  alone,  without  the  literal  use  of  that  word 
alone.  But  faith  being  asserted,  in  opposition  to  all  works  of 
ours,  "unto  him  that  worketli  not,"  and  its  especial  nature  de- 


IN   THE   EPISTLES    OP    PAUl,    ETC.  357 

Glared  in  its  especial  object,  "  God  as  justifying  the  ungodly," 
that  is,  "  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is 
in  Christ  Jesus,"  no  place  is  left  for  any  works  to  make  the  least 
approach  towards  our  justification  before  God,  under  the  covert 
of  any  distinction  whatever.  And  the  nature  of  justifying  faith 
is  here  also  determined.  It  is  not  a  mere  assent  to  divine  rev- 
elations; it  is  not  such  a  firm  assent  to  them,  as  should  cause 
us  to  yield  obedience  to  all  the  precepts  of  the  Scripture, 
though  these  things  are  included  in  it;  but  it  is  a  believing  on, 
and  trusting  to  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  through  the 
mediation  of  Christ. 

Concerning  this  person,  the  Apostle  affirms  that  his  "  faith  is 
counted  for  righteousness,"  that  is,  he  is  justified  in  the  way 
and  manner  before  declared.  But  there  is  a  difference  about 
the  sense  of  these  words.  Some  say,  the  meaning  of  them  is, 
that  faith  as  an  act,  a  grace,  a  duty,  or  work  of  ours,  is  so  im- 
puted. We  say,  that  it  is  faith  as  it  apprehends  Christ  and 
his  righteousness,  which  is  properly  imputed  to  us,  that  is  in- 
tended. So  faith,  say  we,  justifies,  or  is  counted  for  righteous- 
ness relatively,  not  properly,  with  respect  to  its  object;  and  so 
we  acknowledge  a  trope  in  the  words.  And  this  is  fiercely 
opposed,  as  though  we  denied  the  express  words  of  the  Scrip- 
ture, when  yet  we  do  but  interpret  this  expression  once  only 
used,  by  many  others,  wherein  the  same  thing  is  declared. 
But  those  who  are  for  the  first  sense,  all  affirm  that  faith  here 
is  to  be  taken  as  including  obedience  or  works,  either  as  the 
form  and  essence  of  it,  or  as  such  necessary  concomitants  as 
have  the  same  influence  with  it  on  our  justification,  or  are  in 
the  same  manner  the  condition  of  it.  But  as  herein  they  admit 
also  of  a  trope  in  the  words  which  they  so  fiercely  blame  in 
us,  so  they  give  this  sense  of  the  whole,  "  to  him  that  work- 
eth  not,  but  believeth  in  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly, 
his  faith  and  works  are  counted  to  him  for  righteousness;" 
which  is  not  only  to  deny  what  the  Apostle  affirms,  but  to  as- 
sign to  him  a  plain  contradiction. 

And  I  do  a  little  marvel  that  any  unprejudiced  person, 
should  expound  the  solitary  expression  in  such  a  sense,  as  is 
contradictory  to  the  design  of  the  Apostle,  the  words  of  the 
same  period,  and  the  whole  ensuing  context.  For  that  which 
the  Apostle  proposes  to  confirmation,  which  contains  his  whole 
design,  is,  that  we  are  justified  by  the  righteousness  which  is 
of  God  by  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ.  That  this  cannot  be 
faith  itself,  shall  immediately  be  made  evident;    and  in  the 


358 


THE    NATURE    OF   JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 


words  of  the  text,  all  works  are  excluded,  if  any  words  be  suf- 
ficient to  exclude  them.  But  faith  absolutely  as  a  single  grace, 
act  and  duty  of  ours,  is  a  work;  much  more  as  it  includes  obe- 
dience in  it,  it  is  all  works.  And  in  the  ensuing  context,  he 
proves  that  Abraham  was  not  justified  by  works.  But  not  to 
be  justified  by  works,  and  to  be  justified  by  some  works,  (as 
faith  itself  is  a  work,  and  if  as  such  it  be  imputed  to  us  for 
righteousness,  we  are  justified  by  it  as  such)  are  contradictory. 
Wherefore  I  shall  oppose  some  few  arguments  to  this  feigned 
sense  of  the  Apostle's  words. 

1.  To  believe  absolutely,  as  faith  is  an  act  and  duty  of  ours, 
and  works,  are  not  opposed;  for  faith  is  a  work,  an  especial 
kind  of  working.  But  faith  as  we  are  justified  by  it,  and 
works,  or  to  work,  are  opposed;  "to  liim  that  worketh  not, 
but  believeth."     So  Gal.  ii.  16.  Eph.  ii.  S. 

2.  It  is  the  righteousness  of  God  that  is  imputed  to  us.  For 
"  we  are  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Christ,"  2  Gor.  v. 
21.  "The  righteousness  of  God  upon  them  that  believe," 
Rom.  iii.  21,  22.  But  faith  absolutely  considered,  is  not  the 
righteousness  of  God.  God  imputes  to  us  "  righteousness 
without  works,"  Rom.  iv.  16.  But  there  is  no  intimation  of 
a  double  imputation  of  two  sorts  of  righteousnesses,  of  the 
righteousness  of  God,  and  that  which  is  not  so.  Now  faith 
absolutely  considered,  is  not  the  righteousness  of  God.     For 

1.  That  wliereto  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed,  where- 
by we  believe  and  receive  it,  is  not  itself  the  righteousness  of 
God.  For  nothing  can  be  the  cause  or  means  of  itself:  but  the 
righteousness  of  God  is  "revealed  unto  faith,"  Rom.  i.  16. 
And  by  it  is  it  received,  Rom.  iii.  22;  v.  11. 

2.  Faith  is  not  the  righteousness  of  God  which  is  by  faith :  but 
the  righteousness  of  God  which  is  imputed  to  us  is  "  the  right- 
eousness of  God  which  is  by  faith,"  Rom.  iii.  22.  Phil.  iii.  9. 

3.  That  whereby  the  righteousness  of  God  is  to  be  sought, 
obtained,  and  submitted  to,  is  not  that  righteousness  itself.  But 
such  is  faith,  Rom.  ix.  30,  31;  x.  30. 

4.  The  righteousness  which  is  imputed  to  us,  is  not  our  own 
antecedently  to  that  imputation.  "That  I  may  be  found  in 
him,  not  having  my  own  righteousness,"  Phil.  iii.  9.  But  faitli 
is  a  man's  own.  Show  me  "thy  faith,"  I  will  show  thee  "my 
faith,"  James  ii.  IS. 

5.  God  imputes  righteousness  to  us,  Rom.  iv.  6.  And  that 
righteousness  which  God  imputes  to  us,  is  the  righteousness 
whereby  we  are  justified,  for  it  is  imputed  to  us  that  we  may 


IN   THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  359 

be  justified.  But  we  are  justified  by  the  obedience  and  blood 
of  Christ.  "  By  the  obedience  of  one  we  are  made  righteous," 
Rom.  V.  19.  "  Much  more  now  being  justified  by  his  blood," 
ver.  9.  "  He  hath  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself," 
Heb.  ix.  26.  "By  his  knowledge  shall  my  righteous  servant 
justify  many,  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities."  Isa.  liii.  .11^ 
But  faith  is  neither  the  obedience,  nor  the  blood  of  Christ.    ■    ' 

6.  Faith,  as  we  said  before,  is  our  own.  And  that  which  is 
our  own  may  be  imputed  to  us.  But  the  discourse  of  the  Apos- 
tle is  about  that  which  is  not  our  own  antecedently  to  imputa- 
tion, but  is  made  ours  thereby,  as  we  have  proved;  for  it  is  of 
"  grace."  And  the  imputation  to  us  of  what  is  really  our  own 
antecedently  to  that  imputation,  is  not  of  grace  in  the  sense  of 
the  Apostle.  For  what  is  so  imputed,  is  imputed  for  what  it 
is,  and  nothing  else.  For  that  imputation  is  but  the  judgment' 
of  God  concerning  the  thing  imputed,  with  respect  to  them 
whose  it  is.  So  the  fact  of  Phineas  was  imputed  to  him  for 
righteousness.  God  judged  it,  and  declared  it  to  be  a  righteous 
rewardable  act.  Wherefore  if  our  faith  and  obedience  be  im- 
puted to  us,  that  imputation  is  only  the  judgment  of  God  that 
we  are  believers  and  obedient.  "Tlie  righteousness  of  the 
righteous,  (saith  the  prophet,)  shall  be  upon  him,  and  the  wick- 
edness of  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him,"  Ezek.  xviii.  20.  As 
the  wickedness  of  the  wicked  is  upon  him,  or  is  imputed  to 
him,  so  the  righteousness  of  the  righteous  is  upon  him,  or  is 
imputed  to  him.  And  the  wickedness  of  the  wicked  is  on  him, 
when  God  judges  him  wicked  as  his  works  are.  So  is  the 
righteousness  of  a  man  upon  him,  or  imputed  to  him,  when 
God  judges  of  his  righteousness  as  it  is.  Wherefore  if  faith 
absolutely  considered,  be  imputed  to  us  as  it  contains  in  itself, 
or  as  it  is  accompanied  with,  works  of  obedience:  then  it  is  im- 
puted to  us,  either  for  a  perfect  righteousness  which  it  is  not, 
or  for  an  imperfect  righteousness  which  it  is;  or  the  imputation 
of  it,  is  the  accounting  of  that  to  be  a  perfect  righteousness, 
which  is  but  imperfect;  but  none  of  these  can  be  affirmed. 

1.  It  is  not  imputed  to  us  for  a  perfect  righteousness,  the 
righteousness  required  by  the  law,  for  so  it  is  not.  Episcopius 
confesses  in  his  disputation,  Disput.  xlv.  §  7,8,  that  "  the  right- 
eousness which  is  imputed  unto  us  must  be  absolutissima  et 
perfectissima,  "  most  absolute  and  most  perfect."  And  thence 
he  thus  defines  the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  us,  namely, 
that  it  is,  gratiosa  divinse  mentis  sestirnatio,  qua  credentem 
in  Filiuni  suum,  eo  loco  reputat  ac  si perfecte  Justus  esset,ac 


360  THE    NATURE    OP    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

legi  et  vohintati  ejus  per  omnia  semper  paruisset;  "a  gra- 
cious judgment  of  the  divine  mind,  by  which  the  believer  in 
Christ  is  regarded  as  perfectly  righteous,  as  if  he  had,  at  all 
times  and  in  all  respects,  obeyed  the  law  and  will  of  God." 
And  no  man  will  pretend,  that  faith  is  such  a  most  absolute 
and  most  perfect  righteousness,  that  by  it  the  righteousness  of 
the  law  should  be  fulfilled  in  us,  as  it  is  by  that  righteousness 
which  is  imputed  to  us. 

2.  It  is  not  imputed  to  us  for  what  it  is,  an  imperfect  right- 
eousness. For,  (1)  This  would  be  of  no  advantage  to  us.  For 
we  cannot  be  justified  before  God  by  an  imperfect  righteous- 
ness, as  is  evident  in  the  prayer  of  the  Psalmist,  Psal.  cxliii.  2. 
"Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  servant,  for  in  thy  sight  no 
man  living,  (no  servant  of  thine  who  has  the  most  perfect,  or 
highest  measure  of  imperfect  righteousness)  shall  be  justified." 
(2)  The  imputation  of  any  thing  to  us,  that  was  ours  antece- 
dently to  that  imputation,  for  what  it  is,  and  no  more,  is  con- 
trary to  the  imputation  described  by  the  Apostle,  as  has  been 
proved. 

3.  This  imputation  pleaded  for,  cannot  be  a  judging  of  that 
to  be  a  perfect  righteousness  which  is  imperfect.  For  the  judg- 
ment of  God  is  according  to  truth.  But  without  judging  it  to 
be  such,  it  cannot  be  accepted  as  such.  To  accept  of  any  thing, 
but  only  for  what  we  judge  it  to  be,  is  to  be  deceived. 

Lastly,  if  faith,  as  a  work,  be  imputed  to  us,  then  it  must  be 
as  a  work  wrought  in  faith.  For  no  other  work  is  accepted 
with  God.  Then  must  that  faith  also  wherein  it  is  wrought  be 
imputed  to  us;  for  that  also  is  faith  and  a  good  work.  That 
therefore  must  have  another  faith  from  whence  it  must  proceed. 
And  so  in  infinitum. 

Many  other  things  there  are  in  the  ensuing  explication  of  the 
justification  of  Abraham,  the  nature  of  his  faith  and  his  right- 
eousness before  God,  with  the  application  of  them  to  all  that 
believe,  which  may  be  justly  pleaded  to  the  same  purpose  with 
those  passages  of  the  context  which  we  have  insisted  on.  But 
if  every  testimony  should  be  pleaded  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  given  to  this  truth,  there  would  be  no  end  of  writing.  One 
thing  more  I  shall  observe  and  put  an  end  to  our  discourse  on 
this  chapter. 

Vers.  6 — 8.  The  Apostle  pursues  his  argument  to  prove  the 
freeness  of  our  justification  by  faith,  without  respect  to  works, 
through  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  in  the  instance  of  par- 
don of  sin,  which  essentially  belongs  thereto.  And  this  he  does 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  361 

by  the  testimony  of  the  Psalmist,  who  places  the  blessedness  of 
a  man  in  the  remission  of  sins.  His  design  is  not  thereby  to 
declare  the  full  nature  of  justification,  which  he  had  done  be- 
fore, but  only  to  prove  the  freeness  of  it  from  any  respect  to 
works  in  the  instance  of  that  essential  part  of  it.  "  Even  as 
David  also  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom 
God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works  (which  was  the 
only  thing  he  designed  to  prove  by  this  testimony)  saying, 
Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven."  He  describes 
their  blessedness  by  it,  not  that  their  whole  blessedness  consists 
therein ;  but  this  concurs  to  it  wherein  no  respect  can  possibly 
be  had  to  any  works  whatever.  And  he  may  justly  from  hence 
describe  the  blessedness  of  a  man,  in  that  the  imputation  of 
righteousness,  and  the  non-imputation  of  sin,  (both  which  the 
Apostle  mentions  distinctly)  wherein  his  whole  blessedness  as 
to  justification  consists,  are  inseparable.  And  because  remis- 
sion of  sin  is  the  first  part  of  justification,  and  the  principal  part 
of  it,  and  has  the  imputation  of  righteousness  always  accom- 
panying it,  the  blessedness  of  a  man  may  be  well  described 
thereby.  Yea,  whereas  all  spiritual  blessings  go  together  in 
Christ,  Eph.  i.  3;  a  man's  blessedness  may  be  described  by  any 
of  them.  But  yet  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  and  the  re- 
mission of  sin  are  not  the  same,  no  more  than  righteousness 
imputed,  and  sin  remitted,  are  the  same.  Nor  does  the  Apostle 
propose  them  as  the  same,  but  mentions  them  distinctly,  both 
being  equally  necessary  to  our  complete  justification,  as  has 
been  proved. 

Rom.  V.  12 — 21.  "Wherefore  as  by  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  and  so  death  passed  upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.  For  until  the  law  sin  was  in 
the  world;  but  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law.  Ne- 
vertheless death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  them 
that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgres- 
sion, who  is  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come.  But  not  as 
the  offence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.  For  if  through  the  off'ence 
of  one,  many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of  God,  and  the 
gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abound- 
ed unto  many.  And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the 
gift.  For  the  judgment  was  by  one  to  condemnation;  but  the 
free  gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justification.  For  if  by  one 
man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one;  much  more  they  which 
receive  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness, 

31 


362  THE    NATURE    OF   XUSTIPICATION    AS    DECLARED 

shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ.  Therefore  as  by  the 
offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation; 
even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all 
men  unto  justification  of  life.  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience 
many  were  made  sinners;  so  by  the  obedience  of  one,  shall 
many  be  made  righteous.  Moreover  the  law  entered  that  the 
offence  might  abound;  but  where  sin  abounded,  grace  did 
much  more  abound:  that  as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death,  even 
so  might  grace  reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life, 
by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

The  Apostle,  Rom.  iii.  27,  affirms,  that  in  this  matter  of  jus- 
tification, all  boasting  is  excluded.  But  here  in  the  verse  fore- 
going, he  grants  a  boasting.      Ov   [xovov   Ss    aVKa   xavx^fnOa   iv   ta 

®E«;  "and  not  only  so,  but  we  also  glory  in  God."  He  excludes 
boasting  in  ourselves,  because  there  is  nothing  in  us  to  procure 
or  promote  our  own  justification.  He  allows  it  us,  "in  God," 
because  of  the  eminency  and  excellency  of  the  way  and  means 
of  our  justification,  which  in  his  grace  he  has  provided.  And 
the  "boasting"  in  God  here  allowed  us,  has  a  peculiar  respect 
to  what  the  Apostle  had  in  prospect  further  to  discourse  of. 
"Not  only  so,"  includes  what  he  had  principally  treated  of  be- 
fore, concerning  our  justification  so  far,  as  it  consists  in  the 
pardon  of  sin.  For  although  he  supposes,  yea,  and  mentions 
the  imputation  of  righteousness  also  to  us;  yet  principally  he 
declares  our  justification  by  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  our  freedom 
from  condemnation,  whereby  all  boasting  in  ourselves  is  ex- 
cluded. But  here  he  designs  a  further  progress,  as  to  that 
whereon  our  glorying  in  God,  on  a  right  and  title  freely  given 
us  to  eternal  life,  depends.  And  this  is  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  and  obedience  of  Christ  to  the  justification  of  life, 
or  the  reign  of  grace,  through  righteousness,  to  eternal  life. 

Great  complaints  have  been  made  by  some  concerning  the 
obscurity  of  the  discourse  of  the  Apostle  in  this  place,  by  rea- 
son of  sundry  figures  of  speech,  which  either  are,  or  are  feigned 
to  be  therein.  Howbeit  I  cannot  but  think,  that  if  men  acquaint- 
ed with  the  common  principles  of  Christianity,  and  sensible  in 
them.selves  of  the  nature  and  guilt  of  our  original  apostasy  from 

God,  would  without  prejudice  read  ■favtrjv  triv  Ttspioxrtv  'trji  ypa^j;?, 

"  this  place  of  the  Scripture,"  they  will  grant  that  the  design 
of  the  Apostle  is  to  prove,  that  as  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imput- 
ed to  all  men  to  condemnation,  so  the  righteousness  and  obe- 
dience of  Christ  is  imputed  to  all  that  believe  to  the  justification 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,     ETC.  363 

of  life.  The  sum  of  it  is  given  by  Theodoret:*  "See  how  the 
things  which  are  Christ's  are  compared  with  those  which  are 
Adam's,  the  medicine  with  the  disease,  the  plaster  with  the 
wound,  righteousness  with  sin,  the  blessing  with  the  curse, 
forgiveness  with  condemnation,  obedience  with  transgression, 
life  with  death,  a  kingdom  with  hell,  Christ  with  Adam,  man 
with  man." 

The  differences  that  are  among  interpreters  about  the  expo- 
sition of  these  words  relate  to  the  use  of  some  particles,  prepo- 
sitions, and  the  dependence  of  one  passage  upon  another;  on 
none  of  which  the  confirmation  of  the  truth  pleaded  for  depends. 
But  the  plain  design  of  the  Apostle,  and  his  express  proposi- 
tions are  such,  as  if  men  could  but  acquiesce  in  them,  might 
put  an  end  to  this  controversy. 

Socinus  acknowledges  that  this  place  of  Scripture  gives,  as 
he  speaks,  "  the  greatest  occasion"  to  our  opinion  in  this  mat- 
ter: for  he  cannot  deny,  but,  at  least,  a  great  appearance  of 
what  we  believe,  is  represented  in  the  words  of  the  Apostle. 
He  therefore  uses  his  utmost  endeavour  to  wrest  and  deprave 
them:  and  yet,  although  most  of  his  artifices  are  since  trans- 
ferred into  the  annotations  of  others  upon  the  place,  he  himself 
produces  nothing  material,  but  what  is  taken  out  of  Origen,  and 
the  comment  of  Pelagius  on  this  epistle,  which  is  extant  in  the 
works  of  Jerome,  and  was  urged  before  him  by  Erasmus.  The 
substance  of  what  he  pleads  for  is,  "  that  the  actual  transgres- 
sion of  Adam  is  not  imputed  to  his  posterity,  nor  a  depraved 
natiu'e  from  thence  comnumicated  to  them.  Only  whereas  he 
had  incurred  the  penalty  of  death,  all  that  derive  their  nature 
from  him  in  that  condition,  are  rendered  subject  to  death  also. 
And  as  for  that  corruption  of  nature  which  is  in  us,  or  a  prone- 
ness  to  sin,  it  is  not  derived  from  Adam,  but  is  a  habit  con- 
tracted by  many  continued  acts  of  our  own.  So  also  on  the 
other  hand,  that  the  obedience  or  righteousness  of  Christ,  is  not 
imputed  to  us.  Only  when  we  make  ourselves  to  become  his 
children  by  our  obedience  to  him;  he  having  obtained  eternal 
life  for  himself  by  his  obedience  to  God,  we  are  made  par- 
takers of  the  benefits  thereof"  This  is  the  substance  of  his 
long  disputation  on  this  subject,  De  Servator.  lib.  iv.  cap.  6. 
But  this  is  not  to  expound  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  but  ex- 

*  Vide  quomodo  quse  Christi  sunt  cum  iis  quas  sunt  Adami  conferantur,  cum 
morbo  medicina,  cum  vulnere  emplastrum,  cum  peccato  justilia,  cum  execratione 
benedictio,  cum  condemnatione  remissio,  cum  transgressione  obedientia,  cum 
mortevita,  cum  inferis  regnum,  Christus  cum  Adam,  homo  cum  homine.  Dial.  iii. 


364  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

pressly  to  contradict  them,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  ensuing  con- 
sideration of  them. 

I  intend  not  an  exposition  of  the  whole  discourse  of  the  Apos- 
tle, but  only  of  those  passages  in  it,  which  evidently  declare 
the  way  and  manner  of  our  justification  before  God. 

A  comparison  is  here  proposed  and  pursued  between  the 
first  Adam,  by  whom  sin  was  brought  into  the  world,  and  the 
second  Adam,  by  whom  it  was  taken  away.  And  a  compari- 
son it  is  ix  ■tov  ivavTfiov,  of  things  contrary,  wherein  there  is  a 
similitude  in  some  things,  and  a  dissimilitude  in  others,  both 
sorts  illustrating  the  truth  declared  in  it.  The  general  propo- 
sition of  it  is  contained  in  ver.  12.  "  As  by  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  and  so  death  passed  on  all 
men,  for  that  all  have  sinned."  The  entrance  of  sin  and  pun- 
ishment into  the  world,  was  "  by  one  man;"  and  that  "by  one" 
sin  as  he  afterwards  declares.  Yet  were  they  not  confined  to 
the  person  of  that  one  man,  but  belonged  equally  to  all.  This 
the  Apostle  expresses,  inverting  the  order  of  the  effect  and 
cause.  In  the  entrance  of  it,  he  first  mentions  the  cause  or  sin, 
and  then  the  effect  or  punishment.  "By  one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world,  and  death  by  sin;"  but  in  the  application  of  it  to  all 
men,  he  expresses  first  the  effect,  and  then  the  cause;  "death 
passed  on  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned."  Death,  on  the 
first  entrance  of  sin,  passed  on  all;  that  is,  all  men  became  lia- 
ble and  obnoxious  to  it,  as  the  punishment  due  to  sin.  All  men 
that  ever  were,  are,  or  shall  be,  were  not  then  existent  in  their 
own  persons.  But  yet  were  they  all  of  them,  then,  upon  the 
first  entrance  of  sin,  made  subject  to  death,  or  liable  to  punish- 
ment. They  were  so  by  virtue  of  divine  constitution  upon  their 
federal  existence  in  tlie  one  man  that  sinned.  And  actually  they 
became  obnoxious  in  their  own  persons  to  the  sentence  of  it, 
upon  their  first  natural  existence,  being  born  children  of  wrath. 

It  is  hence  manifest  what  sin  it  is  that  the  Apostle  intends, 
namely,  the  actual  sin  of  Adam;  the  one  sin  of  that  one  com- 
mon person  whilst  he  was  so.  For  although  the  corruption  and 
depravation  of  our  nature,  necessarily  ensues  thereon,  in  every 
one  that  is  brought  forth  actually  in  the  world  by  natural  gen- 
eration; yet  is  it  the  guilt  of  Adam's  actual  sin  alone,  that  ren- 
dered them  all  obnoxious  to  death  upon  the  first  entrance  of 
sin  into  the  world.  So  death  entered  by  sin,  the  guilt  of  it,  ob- 
noxiousness  to  it,  and  that  with  respect  to  all  men  universally. 

Death  here  comprises  the  whole  punishment  due  to  sin,  be  it 
what  it  will,  concerning  which  we  need  not  here  to  dispute. 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OP    PAUL,    ETC.  365 

"The  wages  of  sin  is  death,"  Rom.  vi.  23,  and  nothing  else. 
Whatever  sin  deserves  in  the  justice  of  God,  whatever  punish- 
ment God  at  any  time  appointed  or  threatened  to  it,  it  is  com- 
prised in  death:  "  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  die 
the  death."  This  therefore  the  Apostle  lays  down  as  the  foun- 
dation of  his  discourse,  and  of  the  comparison  which  he  intends; 
namely,  that  in  and  by  the  actual  sin  of  Adam,  all  men  are 
made  liable  to  death,  or  to  the  whole  punishment  due  to  sin. 
Tliat  is,  the  guilt  of  that  sin  is  imputed  to  them.  For  nothing 
is  intended  by  the  imputation  of  sin  to  any,  but  the  rendering 
them  justly  obnoxious  to  the  punishment  due  to  that  sin;  as 
the  not  imputing  of  sin,  is  the  freeing  of  men  from  being  subject 
or  liable  to  punishment.  And  this  sufficiently  evidences  the 
vanity  of  the  Pelagian  gloss  that  death  passed  upon  all,  merely 
by  virtue  of  natural  propagation  from  him  who  had  deserved 
it,  without  any  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  sin  to  them;  which  is 
a  contradiction  to  the  plain  words  of  the  Apostle.  For  it  is  the 
guilt  of  sin,  and  not  natural  propagation,  that  he  affirms  to  be 
the  cause  of  death. 

Having  mentioned  sin  and  death,- the  one  asthe  only  cause 
of  the  other,  the  guilt  ofsin,of  the  punishment  of  death,  sin  de- 
serving nothing  but  death,  and  death  being  due  to  nothing  but 
sin,  he  declares  how  all  men  universally  became  liable  to  this 
punishment,  or  guilty  of  death,  e^'w  navtsi'v^ixaptov,  iriquoomnes 
peccaverunt;  "  in  wliora  all  have  siijned."  J'or  it  relates  to 
the  one  man  that  sinned,  in  whom  all  sinned;  which  is  evident 
from  the  elfect  thereof,  in  as  much  as  "  in  him  all  died,"  1  Cor. 
XV.  22.  Or  as  it  is  here,  on  his  sin  "  death  passed  on  all  men." 
And  this  is  the  evident  sense  of  the  words,  S7t(.  being  put  for  iv, 
which  is  not  unusual  in  the  Scripture.  See  Matt.  xv.  5.  Rom. 
iv.  IS;  V.  2.  Phil.  i.  3.  Heb.  ix.  17.  And  it  is  so  often  used  by, 
the  best  writers  in  the  Greek  tongue:  so  Hesiod  fut^ov  5'  sjti 
Ttaaiv  apistov,  inodua  in  omnibus  rebus  optbnus.  So  i^  vynv 
cativ,  in  vobis  siturn  est,  fovto  in'  t^ot  xntai,  hoc  in  me  situm 
est.  And  this  reading  of  the  words  is  contended  for  by  Aus- 
tine  against  the  Pelagians,  rejecting  their  eo  quod  ox  propterea. 
But  I  shall  not  contend  about  the  reading  of  the  words.  It 
is  the  artifice  of  our  adversaries  to  persuade  men,  that  the 
force  of  our  argument  to  prove  from  hence  the  imputation  of 
the  sin  of  Adam  to  his  posterity,  depends  solely  upon  interpret- 
ing these  words,  £^'  w,  "  in  whom."  We  shall  therefore  grant 
them  their  desire,  that  they  are  better  rendered  by  eo  quod, 
propterea,  or  quatenus;  "in  as  much  as,"  ''  because."     Only 

31* 


366  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

we  must  say,  that  here  is  a  reason  given,  why  "death  passed 
on  all  men,  in  as  much  as  all  have  sinned,"  that  is,  in  that  sin 
whereby  death  entered  into  the  world. 

It  is  true.  Death  by  virtue  of  the  original  constitution  of  the 
law,  is  due  to  every  sin,  whenever  it  is  committed.  But  the 
present  inquiry  is,  how  death  passed  at  once  on  all  men,  how 
they  came  liable  and  obnoxious  to  it  upon  its  first  entrance  by 
the  actual  sin  of  Adam;  which  cannot  be  by  their  own  actual  sin. 
Yea,  the  Apostle  in  the  next  verses  affirms,  that  death  passed  on 
them  also,  who  never  sinned  actually,  or  as  Adam  did,  whose  sin 
was  actual.  And  if  the  actual  sins  of  men  in  imitation  of  Adam's 
sin  were  intended,  then  should  men  be  made  liable  to  death, 
before  they  had  sinned.  For  death  upon  its  first  entrance  into 
the  world,  passed  on  all  men,  before  any  one  man  had  actually 
sinned,  but  Adam  o-rily.  But  that  men  should  be  liable  to 
death,  which  is  nothing  but  the  punishment  of  sin,  when  they 
have  not  sinned,  is  an  open  contradiction.  For  although 
God  by  his  sovereign  power  might  inflict  death  on  an  innocent 
creature,  yet  that  an  innocent  creature  should  be  guilty  of 
death  is  impossible.  For  to  be  guilty  of  death,  is  to  have  siimed. 
Whe'j'efore  this  expres'sion,  "in  as  much  as  all  have  sinned," 
expressibgthe  desert  £lnd  guilt  of  death,  at  that  time  when  sin 
and  death"  first  entered  into  the  world,  no  sin  can  be  intended 
in  it,  but  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  our  interest  therein;  eramus 
enim  o?7i?ies  ille  unus  homo.  And  this  can  be  no  otherwise, 
but  by  the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  that  sin  to  us.  For  the 
act  of  Adam  not-  being  ours  inherently  and  subjectively,  we 
cannot  be  concerned  in  its  eflect,  but  by  the  imputation  of  its 
guilt.  For  the  communication  of  that  to  us  which  is  not  in- 
herent in  us,  is,  that  which  we  intend  by  imputation. 
^  This  is  the  rt^otaai?  of  the  intended  comparison,  which  I  have 
insisted  the  longer  on,  because  the  Apostle  lays  in  it  the  foun- 
dation of  all  that  he  afterwards  infers,  and  asserts  in  the  whole 
comparison.  And  here  some  say  there  is  an  6,vo.vtoTiQlo.tov  in 
his  discourse,  that  is,  he  lays  down  the  proposition  on  the  part 
of  Adam,  but  does  not  show  what  answers  to  it  on  the  con- 
trary in  Christ.  And  Origen  gives  the  reason  of  the  silence  of 
the  Apostle  herein,  namely,  "Lest  what  is  to  be  said  therein, 
should  be  abused  lay  any  to  sloth  and  negligence."  For 
whereas  he  says  i^ume,^  "  as,"  which  is  a  note  of  similitude,  "  by 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin;"  so  the 
drtoSortif  or  reddition  should  be,  "  So,  by  one,  righteousness  en- 
tered into  the  world,  and  life  by  righteousness." 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,   ETC.  367 

This  he  acknowledges  to  be  the  genuine  filhng  up  of  the 
comparison,  but  it  was  not  expressed  by  the  Apostle,  "Lest 
men  should  abuse  it  to  negligence  or  security,"  supposing  that 
to  be  done  already,  which  should  be  done  afterwards.  But  as 
this  plainly  contradicts  and  averts  most  of  what  he  further  as- 
serts in  the  exposition  of  the  place;  so  the  Apostle  concealed 
not  any  truth  upon  such  considerations.  And  as  he  plainly 
expresses  that  which  is  here  intimated,  verse  19,  so  he  shows 
how  foolish  and  wicked  any  such  imaginations  are,  as  suppose 
that  any  countenance  is  given  hereby  to  any,  to  indulge  them- 
selves in  their  sins. 

Some  grant,  therefore,  that  the  Apostle  conceals  the  expres- 
sion of  what  is  ascribed  to  Christ,  in  opposition  to  what  lie 
had  affirmed  of  Adam  and  his  sin,  to  verse  19.  But  the  truth  is,  it 
is  sufficiently  included  in  the  close  of  ver.  14,  where  he  affirms  of 
Adam,  that  in  those  things  whereof  he  treats,  he  "  was  the  figure 
of  him  that  was  to  come."  For  the  way  and  manner  whereby 
he  introduced  righteousness  and  life,  and  communicated  them 
to  men,  answered  the  way  and  manner  whereby  Adam  intro- 
duced sin  and  death  which  passed  on  all  the  world.  Adam 
being  the  figure  of  Christ,  look  how  it  was  with  him,  with  re- 
spect to  his  natural  posterity  as  to  sin  and  death;  so  it  is  with 
the  Lord  Christ,  the  second  Adam  and  his  spiritual  posterity, 
with  respect  to  righteousness  and  life.     Hence  we  argue, 

If  the  actual  sin  of  Adam  was  so  imputed  to  all  his  poste- 
rity, as  to  be  accounted  their  own  sin  to  condemnation,  then 
is  the  actual  obedience  of  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  imputed 
to  all  his  spiritual  seed,  that  is,  to  all  believers,  to  justification. 
I  shall  not  here  further  press  this  argument,  because  the 
ground  of  it  will  occur  to  us  afterwards. 

The  two  next  verses  containing  an  objection  and  an  answer 
returned  to  them,  wherein  we  have  no  immediate  concern- 
ment, I  shall  pass  by. 

Verses  15,  16.  The  Apostle  proceeds  to  explain  his  compa- 
rison in  those  things,  wherein  there  is  a  dissimilitude  between 
the  things  compared. 

"  But  not  as  the  offence,  so  is  the  free  gift;  for  if  through  the 
offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of  God, 
and  the  gift  by  grace,  by  one  man  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded 
unto  many." 

The  opposition  is  between  rtapartT'co;ua  on  the  one  hand,  and 
;KapK5^aon  the  other;  between  which,  a  dissimilitude  is  asserted, 
not  as  to  their  opposite  effects  of  death  and  life,  but  only  as  to  the 


368  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS     DECLARED 

degreesof  their  efficacy,  with  respect  to  those  effects,  naparttufxa, 
"the  offence,  the  fall,  the  sin,  the  transgression;"  that  is  tou 
Ivoj  Tiapaxoyj,  "the  disobedience  of  one,"  verse  19.  Hence  the 
first  sin  of  Adam,  is  generally  called  the  /all,  to  TtapaxTi^fia. 
That  which  is  opposed  hereto,  is  to  xa-p^o^ta;  donum,  donnm 
gratuitum,  heneficium,  id  quod  Deus  gratijicatur;  that  is, 

;^aptj  r^v    &iov,    xac    ficopsa    iv    ;^apiTt    t»7    tod    ivo(;    dvSptortov      Ir^nov 

XpKJTOD,  as  it  is  immediately  explained;  "the  grace  of  God, 
and  the  free  gift  by  grace,  through  Jesus  Christ."  Wherefore, 
although  this  word,  in  the  next  verse,  precisely  signifies  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  yet  here  it  comprehends  all  the  causes 
of  our  justification,  in  opposition  to  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  the 
entrance  of  sin  thereby. 

The  consequence  and  efiect  tov  ftapartticfxatoi  of  the  offence, 
the  fall,  is,  that  "  many  be  dead."  No  more  is  here  intended 
by  many,  but  only  that  the  effects  of  that  one  offence  were  not 
confined  to  one:  and  if  we  inquire  who,  or  how  many  those 
many  are,  the  Apostle  tells  us,  that  they  are  "all  men"  univer- 
sally, that  is,  all  the  posterity  of  Adam.  By  this  one  offence, 
because  they  ail  sinned,  therein  they  are  all  dead;  that  is,  ren- 
dered obnoxious  and  liable  to  death,  as  the  punishment  due  to 
that  one  offence.  And  hence  also  it  appears,  how  vain  it  is  to 
wrest  those  words  of  ver.  12.  "  In  as  much  as  all  have  sinned," 
to  any  other  sin,  but  the  first  sin  in  Adam;  seeing  it  is  given 
as  the  reason  why  death  passed  on  them,  it  being  here  plainly 
affirmed,  that  they  are  dead,  or  that  death  passed  on  them  by 
that  one  offence. 

The  efficacy  tov  %api.ai^afoi,  of  the  "free  gift,"  opposed  here- 
to, is  expressed,  as  that  which  "abounded  much  more."  Be- 
sides the  thing  itself  asserted,  which  is  plain  and  evident,  the 
Apostle  seems  to  me  to  argue  the  equity  of  our  justification  by 
grace,  through  the  obedience  of  Christ,  by  comparing  it  with 
the  condemnation  that  befel  us  by  the  sin  and  disobedience  of 
Adam.  For  if  it  were  just,  meet,  and  equal  that  all  men  should 
be  made  subject  to  condemnation  for  the  sin  of  Adam;  it  is 
much  more  so,  that  those  who  believe,  should  be  justified  by 
the  obedience  of  Christ,  through  the  grace  and  free  donation  of 
God.  But  wherein,  in  particular,  the  gift  by  grace  abounded 
to  many,  above  the  efficacy  of  the  fall  to  condemn,  he  declares 
afterwards.  And,  that  whereby  we  are  freed  from  condemna- 
tion, more  eminently  than  we  are  made  obnoxious  to  it  by  the 
fall  and  sin  of  Adam,  by  that  alone  we  are  justified  before 
God.   .But  this  is  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace, 


IN   THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  369 

through  Jesus  Christ  alone,  which  we  plead  for,  ver.  16.  An- 
other difference  between  the  things  compared  is  expressed,  or 
rather  the  instance  is  given  in  particular  of  the  dissimilitude 
asserted  in  general  before. 

"  And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the  gift;  for 
the  judgment  was  by  one  to  condemnation;  but  the  free  gift 
is  of  many  offences  unto  justification." 

At'  si/05  afiaptriaavto^,  "  by  oue  that  sinned,"  is  the  same  with 
So'  tvoi  Tiapanfi^ixato^,  "  by  one  siu.  One  offence,"  the  one  sin  of 
that  one  man.  Kpcfxa,  we  render  "judgment."  Most  inter- 
preters do  it  by  reatus,  guilt,  or  crimen,  which  is  derived  from 
it.  So  nfliyn  judicium,  is  used  in  the  Hebrew  for  guih,  Jer. 
xxvi.  11.  "The  judgment  of  death  is  to  this  man,"  this  man 
is  guilty  of  death,  has  deserved  to  die.     First  therefore  there 

was  rCapartT'wjtta  "  the  siu,  the  fall,"  tov  tvoi  afia^t7]!lavto?  "  of  OUe 

man  that  sinned,"  it  was  his  actual  sin  alone.  Thence  follow- 
ed x^ifia,  reatus,  "  guilt;"  this  was  common  to  all.  In  and  by  ■ 
that  one  sin,  guilt  came  upon  all.  And  the  end  hereof,  that 
which  it  rendered  men  obnoxious  to,  is  xataxpt^a,  "  condemna- 
tion;" "guilt  to  condemnation;"  and  this  guilt  to  condemna- 
tion which  came  upon  all,  was  si  ho;  "  of  one"  person,  or  sin. 
This  is  the  order  of  things  on  the  part  of  Adam.  (1)  naparttcofia. 
the  one  sin.  (2)  Kpi^a  the  guilt  that  thereon  ensued  to  all.  (3) 
Kataxpv^a  the  Condemnation  which  that  guilt  deserved.  And 
their  Antitheta  or  opposites  in  the  second  Adam,  are  (1)  ;tap'(^M» 
the  free  donation  of  God.  (2)  Ai^prjixa  the  gift  of  grace  itself,  or 
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  (3)  Atxatw^a  or  Stxanoaij  fco>^5,  jus- 
tification of  life.  But  yet  though  the  Apostle  thus  distinguishes 
these  things  to  illustrate  his  comparison  and  opposition,  yet 
that  which  he  intends  by  them  all,  is  the  righteousness  and 
obedience  of  Christ,  as  he  declares,  ver.  18,  19.  This  in  the 
matter  of  our  justification,  he  (1)  calls  Xaptojua  with  respect  to 
the  free  gratuitous  grant  of  it  by  the  grace  of  God,  Aiopia  ttj^ 
;t;aptroj;  and  (2)  Acopjj^a  with  respect  to  us  who  receive  it:  a 
free  gift  it  is  to  us;  and  (3)  j^ixai,ujfA.a,  with  respect  to  its  effect 
of  making  us  righteous. 

Whereas  therefore,  by  the  sin  of  Adam  imputed  to  them, 
'•■  guilt  came  on  all  men  unto  condemnation,"  we  must  inquire 
wherein  the  free  gift  was  otherwise.  "  Not  as  by  one  that 
sinned,  so  was  the  gift."  And  it  was  so  in  two  things:  for  (1) 
condemnation  came  upon  all  by  one  offence.  But  being  under 
the  guilt  of  that  one  offence,  we  contract  the  guilt  of  many 
more,  innumerable.     Wherefore  if  the  free  gift  had  respect 


370 


THE    NATURE    OP    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 


only  to  that  one  offence,  and  intended  itself  no  farther,  we 
could  not  be  delivered;  wherefore  it  is  said  to  be  of  *•  many 
offences,"  that  is,  of  all  our  sins  and  trespasses  whatever.  (2) 
Adam  and  all  his  posterity  in  him,  were  in  a  state  of  accept- 
ance with  God,  and  placed  in  a  way  of  obtaining  eternal  life 
and  blessedness,  wherein  God  himself  would  have  been  their 
reward.  In  this  estate  by  the  entrance  of  sin,  they  lost  the 
favour  of  God,  and  incurred  the  guilt  of  death  or  condemna- 
tion, for  they  are  the  same.  But  they  lost  not  an  immediate 
right  and  title  to  life  and  blessedness.  For  this  they  had  not, 
nor  could  have  before  the  course  of  obedience  prescribed  to 
them  was  accomplished.  That  therefore,  which  came  upon 
all  by  the  one  offence,  was  the  loss  of  God's  favour  in  the  ap- 
probation of  their  present  state,  and  the  judgment  or  guilt  of 
death  and  condemnation.  But  an  immediate  right  to  eternal 
life,  by  that  one  sin  was  not  lost.  The  free  gift  is  not  so.  For 
as  by  it  we  are  freed,  not  only  from  one  sin,  but  from  all  our 
sins,  so  also  by  it  we  have  a  right  and  title  to  eternal  life.  For 
therein  "  grace  reigns  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life," 
ver.  22. 

The  same  truth  is  further  explained  and  confirmed,  ver.  17. 
"  For  if  by  one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one,  much  more 
they  which  receive  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of  right- 
eousness, shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ."  The  design 
of  the  Apostle  having  been  sufficiently  manifested  in  our  ob- 
servations on  the  former  verses,  I  shall  from  this  only  observe 
those  things  which  more  immediately  concern  our  present  sub- 
ject. And  (1)  it  is  worth  observation,  with  what  variety  of 
expressions  the  Apostle  sets  forth  the  grace  of  God  in  the  justi- 
fication  of  believers.      Atxaiw^a,  8u,pi^iAa,,  ;taptj,   ;t«P"^,"'=^'  rtfpioafta 

;taptToj,  Scopta  tr^i  buxaioavvr^i.  Nothing  is  Omitted  that  may  any 
way  express  the  freeness,  sufficiency,  and  efficacy  of  grace  to 
that  end.  And  although  these  terms  seem  some  of  them  to  be 
coincident  in  their  signification,  and  to  be  used  by  him  promis- 
cuously, yet  every  one  includes  something  that  is  peculiar,  and 
all  of  them  set  forth  the  whole  work  of  grace.  Atxaiu;ua  seems 
to  me  to  be  used  in  this  argument  for  6txavo%oyr^na,  which  is  the 
foundation  of  a  cause  in  trial,  the  matter  pleaded,  whereon  the 
person  tried  is  to  be  acquitted  and  justified.  And  this  is  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  "  of  one,"  Ac^pjj^ua,  or  a  free  donation 
is  exclusive  of  all  desert  and  conditions  on  our  part,  who  re- 
ceive it.  And  it  is  that  whereby  we  are  freed  from  condemna- 
tion, and  have  a  right  to  the  justification  of  life.     Xapij  is  the 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,  ETC.  371 

free  grace  and  favour  of  God,  which  is  the  original  or  efficient 
cause  of  our  justification,  as  was  declared  chap.  iii.  24.  Xapcsixa 
has  been  explained  before.  Ucpieana  ;t»P'*<'J  "the  abundance 
of  grace,"  is  added  to  secure  believers  of  the  certainty  of  the 
effect.  It  is  that  whereto  nothing  is  wanting  to  our  justifica- 
tion. Awpta  ttj?  Sixauoswyji  expresses  the  free  grant  of  that  right- 
eousness which  is  imputed  to  us  to  the  justification  of  life, 
afterv/ards  called  the  obedience  of  Christ.  Be  men  as  wise 
and  learned  as  they  please,  it  becomes  us  all  to  learn  to  think, 
and  speak  of  those  divine  mysteries  from  this  blessed  Apostle, 
who  knew  them  better  than  we  all,  and  besides,  wrote  by  di- 
vine inspiration. 

And  it  is  marvellous  to  me,  how  men  can  break  through  the 
fence  that  he  has  made  about  the  grace  of  God,  and  obedience 
of  Christ  in  the  work  of  our  justification  before  God,,  to  intro- 
duce their  own  works  of  obedience,  and  to  find  a  place  for  them 
therein.  But  the  design  of  Paul  and  that  of  some  men  in  declar- 
ing this  point  of  our  justification  before  God,  seem  to  be  very 
opposite  and  contrary.  His  whole  discourse  is  concerning  the 
grace  of  God,  the  death,  blood,  and  obedience  of  Christ,  as  if 
he  could  never  sufficiently  satisfy  himself  in  the  setting  out  and 
declaration  of  them,  without  the  least  mention  of  any  works  or 
duties  of  our  own,  or  the  least  intimation  of  any  use  that  they 
are  of  herein.  But  all  their  pleas  are  for  their  own  works  and 
duties;  and  they  have  invented  as  many  terms  to  set  them  out 
by,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  has  used  for  the  expression  and  declara- 
tion of  the  grace  of  God.  Instead  of  the  words  of  wisdom  be- 
fore mentioned,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  taught,  wherewith 
he  fills  up  his  discourse,  theirs  are  filled  with  conditions,  pre- 
paratory dispositions,  merits,  causes,  and  I  know  not  what 
trappings  for  our  own  works.  For  my  part  I  shall  choose 
rather  to  learn  of  him,  and  accommodate  my  conceptions  and 
expressions  of  gospel  mysteries,  and  of  this,  in  especial,  con- 
cerning our  justification,  to  his  who  cannot  deceive  me  ;  than 
trust  to  any  other  conduct,  how  specious  soever  its  pretences 
may  be. 

2.  It  is  plain  in  this  verse,  that  no  more  is  required  of  any 
one  to  justification,  but  that  he  receive  "  the  abundance  of  grace 
and  the  gift  of  righteousness."  For  this  is  the  description  that 
the  Apostle  gives  of  those  that  are  justified,  as  to  any  thing 
that  on  their  part  is  required.  And  as  this  excludes  all  works 
of  righteousness  which  we  do;  for  by  none  of  them  do  we  re- 
ceive the  abundance  of  grace,  and  the  gift  of  righteousness;  so 


372  THE    NATURE    OF   JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

it  does  also  the  imputation  of  faith  itself  to  our  justification,  as 
it  is  an  act  and  duty  of  our  own;  for  faith  is  that  whereby  we 
receive  the  gift  of  righteousness,  by  which  we  are  justified. 
For  it  will  not  be  denied,  but  that  we  are  justified  by  the  gift 
of  righteousness,  or  the  righteousness  which  is  given  to  us;  for 
by  it  have  we  right  and  title  to  life.  But  our  faith  is  not  this 
gift;  for  that  which  receives,  and  that  which  is  received,  are  not 
the  same. 

3.  Where  there  is  rtspteeaa  xapmo^,  and  xo'pf'i  vrt^prctpiaesvovea, 
"  abounding  grace,  superabounding  grace,"  exerted  in  our  jus- 
tification, no  more  is  required  thereto.  For  how  can  it  be  said 
to  abound,  yea,  to  superabound,  not  only  to  the  freeing  of  us 
from  condemnation,  but  the  giving  of  us  a  title  to  life;  if  in  any 
thing  it  is  to  be  supplied,  and  eked  out  by  works  and  duties  of 
our  own?  The  things  intended  fill  up  these  expressions,  al- 
though to  some  they  are  but  an  empty  noise. 

4.  There  is  a  gift  of  righteousness  required  to  our  justifica- 
tion, which  all  must  receive,  who  are  to  be  justified.  And  all 
are  justified  who  do  receive  it;  for  they  that  receive  it,  shall 
"  reign  in  life  by  Jesus  Christ."  And  hence  it  follows,  (1)  that 
the  righteousness  whereby  we  are  justified  before  God,  can  be 
nothing  of  our  own,  nothing  inherent  in  us,  nothing  performed 
by  us.  For  it  is  that  which  is  freely  given  us,  and  this  dona- 
tion is  by  imputation.  "  Blessed  is  the  man  unto  whom  the 
Lord  imputeth  righteousness,"  chap.  iv.  6.  And  by  faith  we 
receive  what  is  so  given  and  imputed,  and  otherwise  we  con- 
tribute nothing  to  our  participation  of  it.  This  it  is  to  be  "justi- 
fied" in  the  sense  of  the  Apostle.  (2)  It  is  such  a  righteous- 
ness as  gives  right  and  title  to  eternal  life.  For  they  that 
receive  it  ''shall  reign  in  life."  Wherefore  it  cannot  consist  in 
the  pardon  of  sin  alone.  For  (1)  the  pardon  of  sin  can  in  no 
tolerable  sense  be  called  "  the  gift  of  righteousness."  Pardon  of 
sin  is  one  thing,  and  righteousness  another.  (2)  Pardon  of  sin 
does  not  give  right  and  title  to  eternal  life.  It  is  true,  he  whose 
sins  are  pardoned,  shall  inherit  eternal  life;  but  not  merely  by 
virtue  of  that  pardon,  but  through  the  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness, which  inseparably  accompanies  it,  and  js  the  ground  of  it. 

The  description  which  is  here  given  of  our  justification  by 
grace  in  opposition  to  the  condemnation,  that  we  were  made 
liable  to  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  in  exaltation  above  it,  as  to 
the  efficacy  of  grace  above  that  of  the  first  sin,  in  that  thereby 
not  one  but  all  sins  are  forgiven,  and  not  only  so,  but  a  right 
to  life  eternal  is  communicated  to  us,  is  this,  That  we  receive 


IN    THE    EPISTLES     OF    PAUL,   ETC.  373 

the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  of  righteousness,  which  gives  us 
a  right  to  life  by  Jesus  Christ.  But  this  is  to  be  justified  by  the 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  received  by  faith  alone. 

The  conclusion  of  what  has  been  evinced  in  the  manage- 
ment of  the  comparison  insisted  on,  is  fully  expressed  and 
further  confirmed  in  verses  18,  19. 

Verse  18.  "  Therefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment 
came  upou  all  men  unto  condemnation,  even  so  by  the  right- 
eousness of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  the 
justification  of  life."  So  we  read  the  words.  '"  By  the  of- 
fence of  one;"  the  Greek  copies  vary  here.  Some  read  t'w  hi 
Ttaparttoifiaft,  wliom  Beza  follows,  and  our  translation  in  the 
margin;  "by  one  offence;"  most  by  ro  -gov  hoi  rcapartTfco^att, 
"  by  the  offence  of  one ;"  and  so  afterwards  as  to  righteousness ; 
but  both  are  to  the  same  purpose.  For  the  one  offence  in- 
tended, is  the  offence  of  one,  that  is,  of  Adam:  and  the  one 
righteousness,  is  the  righteousness  of  one,  Jesus  Christ. 

The  introduction  of  this  assertion  by  apa  ooji/,  the  note  of  a 
syllogistical  inference,  declares  what  is  here  asserted  to  be  the 
substance  of  the  truth  pleaded  for.  And  the  comparisonis  con- 
tinued, ws  "  so,  after  the  same  manner." 

That  which  is  affirmed  on  the  one  side,  is  6t'  ho^  TtapaTttu^a-io? 

fv?  rtavtai  avdpuTiovs  ft?  xa-taxpifia',    "  by  the  siu  Or  fall  of   OUC,  OR 

all  men  unto  condemnation."  that  is,  judgment,  say  we,  repeat- 
ing xpt^tia  from  the  foregoing  verse.  But  xpifia  n?  xataxpifia  is 
guilt,  and  that  only.  By  the  sin  of  one,  all  men  became  guilty, 
and  were  made  obnoxious  to  condemnation.  The  guilt  of  it 
is  imputed  to  all  men.  For  no  otherwise  can  it  come  upon 
them  to  condemnation,  no  otherwise  can  they  be  rendered 
obnoxious  to  death  and  judgment  on  account  thereof  For 
we  have  evinced  that  by  death  and  condemnation  in  this 
disputation  of  the  Apostle,  the  whole  punishment  due  to 
sin,  is  intended.  This  therefore  is  plain  and  evident  on  that 
hand. 

In  answer  hereto,  the  Scxaiu/xa  of  one  as  to  the  causality  of 
justification,  is  opposed  to  the  TtapaTttiofia  of  the  other,  as  to  its 
causality  to,  or  of  condemnation.  At  svo?  Sixaiufiato^,  "  By  the 
righteousness  of  one;"  that  is,  the  righteousness  that  is  plead- 
able £15  8ixacu>aiv  to  justification.  For  that  is  5txoiu:-;ua  a  right- 
eousness pleaded  for  justification.  By  this,  say  our  translators, 
"  the  free  gift  came  upon  all;"  repeating  a^apio^ua  from  the  fore- 
going verse,  as  they  had  done  xpt^ua  before  on  the  other  hand. 
The  Syriac  translation  renders  the  words  without  the  aid  of 

32 


374 


THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 


any  supplement:  "Therefore  as  by  the  sin  of  one,  condemna- 
tion was  unto  all  men,  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  justifi- 
cation unto  life  shall  be  unto  all  men."  And  the  sense  of  the 
words  is  so  made  plain  without  the  supply  of  any  other  word 
into  the  text.     But  whereas  in  the  original  the  words  are  not 

xaT'axpSjUa  scj  Tiavta^  avOpurtovi,  but  ftj  }iavfai  avOfXurtovi  sij  xaT'axpt;ita, 

and  so  in  the  latter  clause,  somewhat  from  his  own  foregoing 
words  is  to  be  supplied  to  answer  the  intention  of  the  Apostle. 
And  this  is  ^faptafia  gratiosa  donatio,  the  free  grant  of  riglit- 
eousness;  or  6iopyjna  the  free  gift  of  righteousness  unto  justifi- 
cation. The  righteousness  of  one,  Christ  Jesus,  is  freely 
granted  to  all  believers,  to  the  justification  of  life.  For  the  "all 
men"  here  mentioned  are  described  by,  and  limited  to  them 
that  "receive  the  abundance  of  grace,  and  the  gift  of  right- 
eousness by  Christ,"  verse  17. 

Some  vainly  pretend  from  hence  a  general  grant  of  right- 
eousness and  life  to  all  men,  whereof  the  greatest  part  are 
never  made  partakers;  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  oppo- 
site nor  contradictory  to  the  Apostle's  design.  Men  are  not 
made  guilty  of  condemnation  from  the  sin  of  Adam,  by  such  a 
divine  constitution,  as  that  they  may,  or  on  some  conditions 
may  not  be  obnoxious  thereto.  Every  one  so  soon  as  he  ac- 
tually exists,  and  by  virtue  thereof,  is  a  descendant  from  the 
first  Adam,  is  actually  in  his  own  person  liable  thereto,  and 
the  wrath  of  God  abides  on  him.  And  no  more  are  intended 
on  the  other  side,  but  those  only  who  by  their  relation  through 
faith  to  the  Lord  Christ  the  second  Adam,  are  actually  inte- 
rested in  the  justification  of  life.  Neither  is  the  controversy 
about  the  imiversality  of  redemption  by  the  death  of  Christ 
herein  concerned.  For  those  by  whom  it  is  asserted,  do  not 
affirm  that  it  is  thence  necessary  that  the  free  gift  to  the  justi- 
fication of  life,  should  come  on  all,  for  that  they  know  it  does 
not  do.  And  of  a  provision  of  righteousness  and  life  for  men 
in  case  they  believe,  although  it  be  true,  yet  nothing  is  spoken 
in  this  place.  Only  the  certain  justification  of  them  that  believe, 
and  the  way  of  it  is  declared.  Nor  will  the  analogy  of  the 
comparison  here  insisted  on,  admit  of  any  such  interpretation. 
For  the  all  on  the  one  hand,  are  all  and  only  those  who  derive 
their  being  from  Adam  by  natural  propagation.  If  any  man 
might  be  supposed  not  to  do  so,  he  would  not  be  concerned  in 
his  sin  or  fall.  And  so  really  it  was  with  the  man  Christ 
Jesus.  And  those  on  the  other  hand,  are  only  those  who  derive 
a  spiritual  life  from  Christ.     Suppose  a  man  not  to  do  so,  and 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  375 

he  is  no  way  interested  in  the  righteousness  of  one  to  the  jus- 
tification of  life.  Our  argument  from  the  words  is  this:  As 
the  sin  of  one  that  came  on  all  to  condemnation,  was  the  sin 
of  the  first  Adam  imputed  to  them,  so  the  righteousness  of  the 
one  to  the  justification  of  life  that  comes  on  all  believers,  is  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  them.  And  what  can  be 
more  clearly  affirmed  or  more  evidently  confirmed  than  this  is 
by  the  Apostle,  I  know  not.  Yet  is  it  more  plainly  expressed, 
verse  19.  "•'  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were 
made  sinners;  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made 
righteous." 

This  is  well  explained  by  Cyrillus  Alexandrinus.*  "  As  by 
the  transgression  of  the  first  man,  in  the  origin  of  our  race,  we 
were  doomed  to  death,  so  by  the  obedience  and  righteousness 
of  Christ,  inasmuch  as  he  subjected  himself  to  the  law,  of 
which  he  himself  was  the  author,  blessing  and  vivification 
through  the  Spirit  have  reached  to  our  whole  nature."  And 
by  Leo.t  "  In  order  to  restore  life  to  all,  he  undertook  the 
cause  of  all,  that  as  by  the  guilt  of  one,  all  have  been  made 
sinners,  so  by  the  innocence  of  one,  all  might  be  made  inno- 
cent; that  righteousness  might  flow  to  men  from  him  who  as- 
sumed the  nature  of  man." 

That  which  he  before  called  Ttapantcu/xa  and  5txai(o;ua  he  now 
expresses  by  rtapaxot^  and  vjiaxo^,  "  disobedience  and  obedience." 
The  rtapaxor?  of  Adam  or  his  disobedience  was  his  actual  trans- 
gression of  the  law  of  God.  Hereby,  saith  the  Apostle,  "  many 
were  made  sinners;"  sinners  in  such  a  sense  as  to  be  obnox- 
ious to  death  and  condemnation.  For  liable  to  death  they 
could  not  be  made,  unless  they  were  first  made  sinners  or 
guilty.  And  this  they  could  not  be,  but  that  they  are  esteemed 
to  have  sinned  in  him,  whereon  the  guilt  of  his  sin  was  im- 
puted to  them.  This  therefore  he  aflirms,  namely  that  the 
actual  sin  of  Adam  was  so  the  sin  of  all  men,  as  that  they 
were  made  sinners  thereby,  obnoxious  to  death  and  condem- 
nation. 

*  Quemadmodum  prsevaricatione  primi  hominis  ut  in  primitiis  generis  nostri, 
morti  addicti  fuimus;  eodem  modo  per  obedientiam  et  justitiam  Christi,  in  quan- 
tum seipsum  legi  subjecit,  quamvis  legis  author  essct,  benedictio  et  vivificatio 
quae  per  Spiritum  est,  ad  totam  nostram  penetravit  naturarn.  In  Joan.  lib.  11. 
cap.  25. 

t  Ut  autem  reparet  omnium  vitam.recepit  omnium  causam;  ut  sicut  per  unius 
reatum  omnes  facti  fuerunt  peccatores,  ita  .per  unius  innocentiam  omnes  fierent 
innocentes;  inde  in  homines  manaret  justitia,  ubi  est  humana  suscepta  natura. 
Epist.  13.  ad  Juvenalem. 


376  THE    NATURE    OF   JUSTIFICATION  AS    DECLARED 

That  which  he  opposes  hereto,  is  17  vrtmxot;  "  the  obedience 
of  one,"  that  is,  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  this  was  the  actual 
obedience  that  he  yielded  to  the  whole  law  of  God.  For  as 
the  disobedience  of  Adam  was  his  actual  transgression  of  the 
whole  law;  so  the  obedience  of  Christ  was  his  actual  accom- 
pUshment  or  fulfilling  of  the  whole  law.  This  the  antithesis 
requires. 

Hereby  "many  are  made  righteous."  How?  By  the  impu- 
tation of  that  obedience  to  them.  For,  so  and  no  otherwise, 
are  men  made  sinners  by  the  imputation  of  the  disobedience  of 
Adam.  And  this  is  that  which  gives  us  a  right  and  title  to 
eternal  life;  as  the  Apostle  declares,  verse  21.  "That  as  sin 
reigned  unto  death;  so  might  grace  reign  through  righteous- 
ness unto  eternal  life."  This  righteousness  is  no  other  but  the 
"  obedience  of  one,"  that  is,  of  Christ,  as  it  is  called,  verse  18. 
And  it  is  said  to  "  come  upon"  us,  that  is,  to  be  imputed  to 
us;  for  blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  God  imputeth  righteous- 
ness. And  hereby  we  have. not  only  deliverance  from  that 
death  and  condemnation  whereto  we  were  liable  by  the  sin  of 
Adam,  but  the  pardon  of  many  offences,  that  is,  of  all  our  per- 
sonal sins,  and  a  right  to  life  eternal  through  the  grace  of  God; 
for  we  are  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the  redemption 
that  is  in  Christ  Jesus. 

And  these  things  are  thus  plainly  and  fully  delivered  by  the 
Apostle,  to  whose  sense  and  expressions  also  (so  far  as  may 
be)  it  is  our  duty  to  accommodate  ours.  What  is  off'ered  in 
opposition  hereto,  is  so  made  up  of  exceptions,  evasions,  and 
perplexed  disputes,  and  leads  us  so  far  off  from  the  plain  words 
of  the  Scripture,  that  the  conscience  of  a  convinced  sinner 
knows  not  what  to  fix  upon  to  give  it  rest  and  satisfaction,  nor 
what  it  is  that  is  to  be  believed  to  justification. 

Piscator  in  his  Scholia  on  this  chapter  and  elsewhere,  insists 
much  on  a  specious  argument  against  the  imputation  of  the 
obedience  of  Christ  to  our  justification.  But  it  proceeds  evi- 
dently on  an  open  mistake  and  false  supposition,  and  is  contra- 
dictory to  the  plain  words  of  the  text.  It  is  true,  as  he  ob- 
serves and  proves,  that  our  redemption,  reconciliation,  pardon 
of  sin,  and  justification  are  often  ascribed  to  the  death  and 
blood  of  Christ  in  a  signal  manner.  The  reasons  of  it  have 
partly  been  intimated  before,  and  a  further  account  of  them 
shall  be  given  immediately.  But  it  does  not  thence  follow, 
that  the  obedience  of  his  life  wherein  he  fulfilled  the  whole 
law,  being  made  under  it  for  us,  is  excluded  from  any  causali- 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  377 

ty  therein,  or  is  not  imputed  to  us.  But  in  opposition  thereto 
he  thus  argues.* 

"  If  the  obedience  of  Christ's  life  was  imputed  to  us  for 
righteousness,  it  was  not  necessary  that  Christ  should  die  for 
us;  for  it  was  our  being  unrighteous  that  made  his  death  ne- 
cessary, 1  Pet.  iii.  18.  If  therefore  we  were  justified  by  his 
life,  there  remained  no  reason  why  he  should  die  for  us;  for 
the  justice  of  God  does  not  allow  of  the  punishment  of  the 
righteous.  But  he  punished  us  in  Christ;  or,  what  is  equiva- 
lent, he  punished  Christ  for  us  and  in  our  stead,  after  he  had 
lived  a  holy  life,  as  is  evident  from  Scripture.  Therefore  we 
were  not  justified  by  the  holy  life  of  Christ.  Again,  Christ 
died  to  procure  for  us  that  righteousness  of  God,  2  Cor.  v.  21. 
He  had  not  therefore  procured  it  before  his  death." 

But  this  whole  argument  I  say,  proceeds  upon  an  evident 
mistake.  For  it  supposes  such  an  order  of  things,  as  that  the 
obedience  of  Christ  or  his  righteousness  in  fulfilling  the  law,  is 
first  imputed  to  us,  and  then  the  righteousness  of  his  death'  is 
afterwards  to  take  place,  or  to  be  imputed  to  us,  which  on  that 
supposition  he  says  would  be  of  no  use.  But  no  such  order 
or  divine  constitution  is  pleaded  or  pretended  in  our  justifica- 
tion. It  is  true,  the  life  of  Christ,  and  his  obedience  to  the 
law  preceded  his  sufferings,  and  undergoing  the  curse  thereof; 
neither  could  it  otherwise  be.  For  this  order  of  these  things 
between  themselves  was  made  necessary  from  the  law  of  na- 
ture; but  it  does  not  thence  follow  that  it  n)ust  be  observed  in 
the  imputation  or  application  of  them  to  us.  For  this  is,  an 
effect  of  sovereign  wisdom  and  grace,  not  respecting  the  natu- 
ral order  of  Ciirisl's  obedience  and  suffering,  but  the  moral 
order  of  the  things  whereto  they  are  appointed.  And  although 
we  need  not  assert,  nor  do  I  so  do,  different  acts  of  the  impu- 
tation of  the  obedience  of  Christ  to  the  justification  of  life,  or  a 
right  and  title  to  life  eternal,  and  of  the  suffering  of  Christ  to 
the  pardon  of  our  sins  and  freedom  from  condemnation;  but 
by  both  we  have  both,  according  to  the  ordinance  of  God,  that 

*  Si  obedientia  vitce  Christi  nobis  ad  justitiam  imputaretur,  non  fuit  opus 
Christum  pro  nobis  mori;  mori  enim  nccesse  fuit  pro  nobis  injustis,  1  Pet.  iii,  18. 
Quod  si  ergo  justi  effecti  sumus  per  vitani  iUius,  causa  nulla  relicta  fuit  cur  pro 
nobis  morerctur;  quia  justitia  Dei  non  patilur  ut  puniat  justos.  At  punivit  nos 
in  Christo,  sou  quod  idem  valet  punivit  Christum  pro  nobjs  et  loco  nostri,  postea- 
quam  ille  sancte  vixisset,  ut  ecrtum  est  e  scriptura.  Ergo  non  sunuis  justi  efFecti 
per  sanctam  vitam  Christi.  Item,  Christus  mortuus  est  ut  justitiam  illam  Dei  nobis 
acquireret.  2  Cor.  v.  21.     Non  igitur  illam  acquisiverat  ante  mortem. 

?!2* 


378  1?HE    NATURE    OF   JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

Christ  may  be  all  in  all;  yet  as  to  the  effects  themselves,  in  the 
method  of  God's  bringing  sinners  to  the  justification  of  life, 
the  application  of  the  death  of  Christ  to  them  to  the  pardon  of 
sin  and  freedom  from  condemnation,  is  in  order  of  nature,  and 
in  the  exercise  of  faith,  antecedent  to  the  application  of  his 
obedience  to  us  for  a  right  and  title  to  life  eternal. 

The  state  of  the  person  to  be  justified,  is  a  state  of  sin  and 
wrath,  wherein  he  is  liable  to  death  and  condemnation.  This  is 
that  which  a  convinced  sinner  is  sensible  of,  and  which  alone 
in  the  first  place  he  seeks  for  deliverance  from.  What  shall  we 
do  to  be  saved?  This  in  the  first  place  is  presented  to  him  in 
the  doctrine  and  promise  of  the  gospel,  which  is  the  rule  and 
instrument  of  its  application.  And  this  is  the  death  of  Christ, 
Without  this  no  actual  righteousness  imputed  to  him,  not  the 
•  obedience  bfChrist  himself,  will  give  him  relief.  For  he  is  sen- 
sible, that  he  |ias  sinned,  and  thereby  come  short  of  the  glory  of 
God,  and  is  under  the  condemnatory  sentence  of  the  law.  Until 
he  receives  a  deliverance  from  hence,  it  is  to  no  purpose  to  pro- 
pose that  to  him  which  should  give  him  right  to  life  eternal. 
•But  upon  a  supposition  hereof,  he  is  no  less  concerned  in  what 
shall  yet  further  give  him  title  thereto,  that  he  may  "reign  in 
life  through  righteousness."  Herein  I  say  in  its  order,  con- 
science is  no  less  concerned  than  in  deliverance  from  condemna- 
tion. And  this  order  is  expressed  in  the  declaration  of  the 
fruit  and  effects  of  the  mediation  of  Christ;  Dan.  ix.  24,  "to 
make  reconciliation  for  iniquity,  and  to  bring  in  everlasting 
righteousness."  Neither  is  there  any  force  in  the  objection 
against  it,  that  actually  the  obedience  of  Christ  preceded  his 
suffering.  For  the  method  of  their  application  is  not  prescribed 
thereby;  and  the  state  of  sinners  to  be  justified,  with  the  na- 
ture of  their  justification,  requires  it  should  be  otherwise,  as 
God  also  has  ordained.  But  because  the  obedience  and  suffer- 
ings of  Christ,  were  concomitant  from  first  to  last,  both  equally 
belonging  to  his  state  of  exinanition,  and  cannot  in  any  act  or 
instancd^be  separated,  but  only  in  notion  or  imagination,  seeing 
he  suffered  in  all  his  obedience,  and  obeyed  in  all  his  suffer- 
ing, Heb.  V.  8;  and  neither  part  of  our  justification,  in  freedom 
from  condemnation,  and  right  to  life  eternal,  can  be  supposed 
to  be  or  exist  without  the  other  according  to  the  ordinance  and 
constitution  of  God;  the  whole  effect  is  jointly  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  whole  mediation  of  Christ,  so  far  as  he  acted  towards  God 
in  our  behalf,  wherein  he  fulfilled  the  whole  law  both  as  to  the 
penalty  exacted  of  sinners,  and  the  righteousness  it  requires  to 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  379 

life  as  an  eternal  reward.  And  there  are  many  reasons  why 
our  justification  is  in  the  Scripture  by  way  of  eminency  ascribed 
to  the  death  and  biood-sheddmg  of  Christ, 

For,  (1)  The  grace  and  love  of  God,  the  principal  efficient 
cause  of  our  justification,  are  therein  made  most  eminent  and 
conspicuous.  For  this  is  most  frequently  in  the  Scripture  pro- 
posed to  us  as  the  highest  instance,  and  undeniable  demonstra- 
tion of  divine  love  and  grace.  And  this  is  that  which  principally 
we  are  to  consider  in  our  justification,  the  glory  of  ihem  being 
the  end  of  God  therein.  "  He  made  us  accepted  in  the  Beloved 
to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,"  Ephes.  i.  6.  Wherefore 
this  being  the  fountain,  spring  and  sole  cause,  both  of  the  obe- 
dience of  Christ,  and  of  the  imputation  thereof  to  us,  with  the 
pardon  of  sin  and  righteousness  thereby,  it  is  every  where  in 
the  Scripture  proposed  as  the  prime  object  of  our  faith  in  our 
justification,  and  opposed  directly  to  all  our  own  works  what- 
ever. The  whole  of  God's  design  herein  is,  that  "grace  may 
reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life."  Whereas  there- 
fore this  is  made  most  evident  and  conspicuous  in  the  death 
of  Christ,  our  justification  is  in  a  peculiar  manner  assigned 
thereto. 

2.  The  love  of  Christ  himself  and  his  grace  are  peculiarly 
exalted  in  our  justification;  that  all  men  may  "honour  the  Son 
even  as  they  honour  the  Father."  Frequently  are  they  express- 
ed to  this  purpose,  2  Cor.  viii.  9.  Gal.  ii.  20.  Phil.  iii.  6,  7.  Rev. 
i.  5,  6.  And  those  also  are  most  eminently  exalted  in  his  death, 
so  that  all  the  effects  and  fruits  of  them  are  ascribed  thereto 
in  a  peculiar  maimer;  as  nothing  is  more  ordinary  than,  among 
many  things  that  concur  to  the  same  effect,  to  ascribe  it  to  that, 
which  is  most  eminent  among  them,  especially  if  it  cannot.be 
conceived  as  separated  from  the  rest. 

3.  This  is  the  clearest  testimony,  that  what  the  Lord  Christ , 
did  and  suffered  was  for  us,  and  not  for  himself..  For  without', 
the  consideration  hereof,  all  the  obedience  which  he  yielded  to 
the  law,  might  be  looked  on  as  due  only  on  his  own  account, 
and  himself  to  have  been  such  a  Saviour  as  the  Socinians 
imagine,  who  should  do  all  with  us  from  God,  and  nothing 
with  God  for  us.  But  the  sufl'ering  of  the  curse  of  the  law  by 
him  who  was  not  only  an  innocent  man,  but  also  the  Son  of 
God,  openly  testifies  that  what  he  did  and  suffered  was  for  us, 
and  not  for  himself.  It  is  no  wonder  therefore  if  our  faith  as 
to  justification  be  in  the  first  place,  and  principally  directed  to 
his  death  and  blood-shedding. 


380 


THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 


4.  All  the  obedience  of  Christ  had  still  respect  to  the  sacrifice 
of  himself,  which  was  to  ensue,  wiierein  it  received  its  accom- 
plishment, and  whereon  its  efficacy  to  our  justification  depend- 
ed. For  as  no  imputation  of  actual  obedience  would  justify 
sinners  from  the  condemnation  that  was  passed  on  them  for 
the  sin  of  Adam;  so  although  the  obedience  of  Christ  was  not 
a  mere  preparation  or  qualification  of  his  person  for  his  suffer- 
ing; yet  its  efficacy  to  our  justification  depended  on  his  suffer- 
ing that  was  to  ensue,  when  his  soul  was  made  an  offering  for 
sin. 

5.  As  was  before  observed,  reconciliation  and  the  pardon  of 
sin  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  do  directly  in  the  first  place 
respect  our  relief  from  the  state  and  condition  whereinto  we 
were  cast  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  in  the  loss  of  the  favour  of  God, 
and  liableness  to  death;  this  therefore  is  that  which  principally 
and  in  the  first  place  a  lost  convinced  sinner,  such  as  Christ 
calls  to  himself,  looks  after.  And  therefore  justification  is  emi- 
nently and  frequently  proposed  as  the  eflect  of  the  blood-shed- 
ding and  death  of  Christ,  which  are  the  direct  cause  of  our  recon- 
ciliation and  pardon  of  sin.  But  yet  from  none  of  these  con- 
siderations does  it  follow  that  the  obedience  of  the  one  man 
Christ  Jesus  is  not  imputed  to  us,  whereby  "grace  might  reign 
through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life." 

The  same  truth  is  fully  asserted  and  confirmed  Rom.  viii. 
1 — 4.  But  this  place  has  been  of  late  so  explained  and  so 
vindicated  by  another  in  his  learned  and  judicious  exposition 
of  it,  (namely  Dr.  Jacombe)  that  nothing  remains  of  weight  to 
be  added  to  what  has  been  pleaded  and  argued  by  him.  And 
indeed  the  answers,  wliich  he  subjoins  to  the  arguments  where- 
by he  confirms  the  truth,  to  the  most  usual  and  important  ob- 
jections against  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
are  sufficient  to  give  just  satisfaction  to  the  minds  of  unpreju- 
diced, unengaged  persons.  I  shall  therefore  pass  over  this 
testimony,  as  that  which  has  been  so  lately  pleaded  and  vin- 
dicated ;  and  not  press  the  same  things,  it  may  be,  as  is  not 
unusual,  to  their  disadvantage. 

Romans  x.  3,  4. — "  For  they  (the  Jews  who  had  a  zeal  for 
God,  but  not  according  to  knowledge)  being  ignorant  of  God's 
righteousness,  and  going  about  to  establish  their  own  righteous- 
ness, have  not  submitted  themselves  to  the- righteousness  of 
God.  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  'for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth." 

What  is  here  determined,  the  Apostle  enters  upon  the  propo- 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  381 

sition  and  declaration  of,  chap.  ix.  30.  And  because  what  he 
had  to  propose  was  somewhat  strange,  and  unsuited  to  the 
common  apprehensions  of  men,  he  introduces  it  with  that  pre- 
fatory interrogation,  n  oijj/  ipovfisv;  which  he  uses  on  the  hke 
occasions,  chap.  iii.  5;  vi.  1;  vii.  7;  ix.  14.  "  What  shall  we 
then  say?"  that  is,  is  there  in  this  matter  unrighteousness  with 
God?  as  verse  14,  or  what  shall  we  say  to  these  things,  or 
what  is  that  which  is  to  be  said  herein?  That  wliich  hereon 
he  asserts  is,  that  "  the  Gentiles  wliich  followed  not  after 
righteousness  have  attained  to  righteousness,  even  the  right- 
eousness which  is  of  faith;  but  Israel  which  followed  after  the 
law  of  righteousness  hath  not  attained  unto  the  law  of  right- 
eousness," that  is,  to  righteousness  itself  before  God. 

Nothing  seems  to  be  more  contrary  to  reason,  than  what  is 
here  made  manifest  by  the  event.  The  Gentiles  who  lived  in 
sin  and  pleasures,  not  once  endeavouring  to  attain  to  any 
righteousness  before  God,  yet  attained  to  it  upon  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel.  Israel  on  the  other  hand  which  followed  after 
righteousness,  diligently  in  all  the  work^of  the  law  and  duties 
of  obedience  to  God  thereby,  carh'b  short  of  it,  attained  not 
to  it.  All  preparations,  all  dispositions,  all  merit  as  to  right- 
eousness and  justification  are  excluded  from  the  Gentiles. 
For  in  all  of  these  there  is  more  or  less  a  following  after  right- 
eousness which  is  denied  of  them  "all.  Only  by  faith  in  him 
who  justifies  the  ungodly,  they  attain  righteousness,  or  they 
attained  the  righteousness  of  faith.  For  to  attain  righteous- 
ness by  faith,  and  to  attain  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith, 
are  the  same.  Wherefore  all  things  that  are  comprised  any 
way  in  following  after  righteousness,  such  as  are  all  our  duties 
and  works,  are  excluded  from  any  influence  upon  our  justifi- 
cation. And  this  is  expressed  to  declare  the  sovereignty  and 
freeness  of  the  grace  of  God  herein;  namely  that  we  are  justi- 
fied freely  by  his  grace,  and  that  on  our  part  all  boasting  is 
excluded.  Let  men  pretend  what  they  will,  and  dispute  what 
they  please,  those  who  attain  to  righteousness  and  justification 
before  God,  when  they  follow  not  atler  righteousness,  do  it  by 
the  gratuitous  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  another  to 
them. 

It  may  be  it  will  be  said;  it  is  true  in  the  time  of  their  hea- 
thenism they  did  not  at  all  follow  after  righteousness,  but  when 
the  truth  of  the  gospel  was  revealed  to  them,  then  they  followed 
after  righteousness  and  attained  it.  But  (1)  This  is  directly  to 
contradict  the  Apostle,  in  that  it  says,  that  they  attained  not 


382  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

righteousness,  but  only  as  they  followed  after  righteousness, 
whereas  he  affirms  the  direct  contrary.  (2)  It  takes  away  the 
distinction  which  he  puts  between  them  and  Israel;  namely, 
that  the  one  followed  after  righteousness,  and  the  other  did 
not.  '(3)  To  follow  after  righteousness  in  this  place,  is  to  fol- 
low after  a  righteousness  of  our  own;  to  establish  their  own 
righteousness,  chap.  x.  3.  But  this  is  so  far  from  being  a 
means  of  attaining  righteousness,  that  it  is  the  most  effectual 
obstruction  thereof. 

If  therefore  those  who  have  no  righteousness  of  their  own, 
v/ho  are  so  far  from  it,  that  they  never  endeavoured  to  attain 
it,  do  yet  by  faith  receive  that  righteousness  wherewith  they 
are  justified  before  God,  they  do  so  by  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  to  them;  or  let  some  other  way  be 
assigned. 

In  the  other  side  of  the  instance  concerning  Israel,  some 
must  liear  whether  they  will  or  not,  that  wherewith  they  are 
not  pleased.  Three  things  are  expressed  of  them:  1.  Their 
attempt.     2.  Their  success.     3.  The  reason  of  it. 

Their  attempt  or  endearvour  was  in  this,  that  they  followed 
after  the  law  of  righteousness.  Atwxw,  the  word  whereby  their 
endeavour  is  expressed,  signifies  that  which  is  earnest,  diligent 
and  sincere.  By  it  the  Apostle  declares  what  his  was,  and 
what  ours  ought  to  be,  in  the  duties  and  exercise  of  gospel 
obedience,  Phil.  iii.  12.  They  were  not  indiligent  in  this  mat- 
ter, but  "  instantly  served  God  day  and  night."  Nor  were 
they  hypocritical;  for  the  Apostle  bears  them  record  in  this 
matter,  that  they  had  "  a  zeal  of  God,"  chap.  x.  2.  And  that 
which  they  thus  endeavour  after  was  vo^oi  dtxacoawr^i  "  the  law 
of  righteousness;"  that  law  which  prescribed  a  perfect  per- 
sonal righteousness  before  God;  the  things  "which  if  a  man 
do,  he  shall  live  in  them,"  chap.  x.  5.  Wherefore  the  Apostle 
has  no  other  respect  to  the  ceremonial  law  in  this  place,  but 
only  as  it  was  branched  out  from  the  moral  law  by  the  will  of 
God,  and  as  the  obedience  to  it  belonged  thereto.  When  he 
speaks  of  it  separately  he  calls  it  "the  law  of  commandments 
contained  in  ordinances,"  but  it  is  no  where  called  the  law  of 
righteousness,  the  law  whose  righteousness  is  fulfilled  in  us, 
chap.  viii.  4.  Wherefore  their  following  after  this  law  of  right- 
eousness, was  their  diligence  in  the  performance  of  all  duties 
of  obedience,  according  to  the  directions  and  precepts  of  the 
moral  law. 

2.  The  issue  of  this  attempt  is,  that  they  attained  not  to  the 


IN    THE    EPISTLES   OF    PAUL,    ETC.  383 

law  of  righteousness,  ft?  rorov  Bixaioawtj?  sx  itp^aes,  that  is,  they 
attained  not  a  righteousness  before  God  hereby.  Though  this 
was  "  the  end  of  the  law,"  namely,  a  righteousness  before  God, 
wherein  a  man  might  hve,  yet  could  they  never  attain  it. 

3.  An  account  is  given  of  the  reason  of  their  failing,  in  attain- 
ing that  which  they  so  earnestly  endeavoured  after.  And  this 
was  in  a  double  mistake  that  they  were  under;  first,  in  the 
means  of  attaining  it;  secondly,  in  the  righteousness  itself,  that 
was  to  be  sought  after.  The  first  is  declared,  ver.  32.  "Because 
not  by  faith,  but  as  it  were  by  the  works  of  the  law."  Faith 
and  works  are  the  two  only  ways  whereby  righteousness  may 
be  attained,  and  they  are  opposite  and  inconsistent;  so  that 
none  do  or  can  seek  after  righteousness  by  them  both.  They 
will  not  be  mixed  and  made  one  entire  means  of  attaining  right- 
eousness. They  are  opposed  as  grace  and  works;  what  is  of 
the  one,  is  not  of  the  other,  Rom.  xi.  6.  Every  composition  of 
them  in  this  matter,  is  Male  sarta  gratia  neqidcquam  coit  et 
rescmditur,  "  a  patched  up  reconciliation,  no  sooner  made  than 
broken."  And  the  reason  is,  because  the  righteousness  which 
faith  seeks  after,  or  which  is  attainable  by  faith,  is  that  which 
is  given  to  us,  imputed  to  us,  which  faith  alone  receives.  "  It 
receives  the  abundance  of  grace,  and  the  gift  of  righteousness," 
Bntthat  which  is  attainable  by  works,  is  our  own,  inherent  in 
us,  wrought  out  by  us,  and  not  imputed  to  us;  for  it  is  nothing 
but  those  works  themselves,  with  respect  to  the  law  of  God. 

And  if  righteousness  before  God,  be  attainable  alone  by  faith, 
and  that  in  contradistinction  to  all  works,  which  if  a  man  do 
them  according  to  the  law,  he  shall  even  live  in  them,  then  is  it 
by  faith  alone  that  we  are  justified  before  God,  or  nothing  else, 
on  our  part,  is  required  thereto.  And  of  what  nature  this  right- 
eousness must  be,  is  evident. 

Again,  if  faith  and  works  are  opposed  as  contrary  and  incon- 
sistent, when  considered  as  the  means  of  attaining  righteous- 
ness or  justification  before  God,  as  plainly  they  are,  then  is  it 
impossible  we  should  be  justified  before  God  by  them,  in  the 
same  sense,  way  and  manner.  Wherefore,  when  the  Apostle 
James  affirms,  that  a  man  is  justified  by  works,  and  not  by 
faith  only,  he  cannot  intend  our  justification  before  God,  where 
it  is  impossible  they  should  both  concur.  For  not  only  are  they 
declared  inconsistent  by  the  Apostle  in  this  place,  but  it  would 
introduce  several  sorts  of  righteousness  to  justification,  that  are 
inconsistent  and  destructive  of  each  other.  This  was  the  first 
mistake  of  the  Jews,  whence  this  miscarriage  ensued;   they 


384  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATIOiST    AS    DECLARED 

"sought  not  after  righteousness  by  faith,  but  as  it  were  by  the 
works  of  the  law." 

Their  second  mistake  was  as  to  the  righteousness  itself,  where- 
on a  man  might  be  justified  before  God.  For  this  they  judged 
was  to  be  their  own  righteousness,  chapter  x.  3.  Their  own 
personal  righteousness  consisting  in  their  own  duties  of  obe- 
dience, they  looked  on  as  the  only  righteousness,  whereon  they 
might  be  justified  before  God.  This  therefore  they  went  about 
to  establish  as  the  Pharisees  did,  Luke  xviii.  11,  12.  And  this 
mistake,  with  their  design  thereon,  to  establish  their  own  right- 
eousness, was  the  principal  cause  that  made  them  reject  the 
righteousness  of  God,  as  it  is  with  many,  at  this  day. 

Whatever  is  done  in  us,  or  performed  by  us,  as  obedience  to 
God,  is  our  own  righteousness.  Though  it  be  done  in  faith,  and 
by  the  aids  of  God's  grace;  yet  is  it  subjectively  ours,  and  so 
far  as  it  is  a  righteousness,  it  is  our  own.  But  all  righteousness 
whatever  which  is  our  own",  is  so  far  diverse  from  the  righteous- 
ness by  which  we  are  to  be  justified  before  God,  that  the  most 
earnest  endeavour  to  establish  it,  that  is,  to  render  it  such,  as 
may  justify  us,  is  an  effectual  means  to  cause  us  to  refuse  a 
submission  to,  and  an  acceptance  of  that,  whereby  alone  we 
may  be  so. 

This  ruined  the  Jews,  and  will  be  the  ruin  of  all  that  shall 
follow  their  example  in  seeking  after  justification;  yet  is  it  not 
easy  for  men  to  take  any  other  way,  or  to  be  taken  otf  from 
this.  So  the  Apostle  intimates  in  that  expression,  "they  sub- 
mitted not  themselves  unto  the  righteousness  of  God."  This 
righteousness  of  God  is  of  that  nature,  that  the  proud  mind  of 
man  is  altoo:ether  unwilling  to  bow  and  submit  itself  to;  yet 
can  it  no  otherwise  be  attained,  but  by  such  a  submission  or 
subjection  of  mind,  as  contains  in  it  a  total  renunciation  of  any 
righteousness  of  our  own.  And  those  who  reproach  others  for 
affirming,  that  men  endeavouring  after  morality  or  moral  right- 
eousness, and  resting  therein,  are  in  no  good  way  for  the  par- 
ticipation of  the  grace  of  God  by  Jesus  Christ,  do  expressly 
deride  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle,  that  is,  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
himself. 

Wherefore,  the  plain  design  of  the  Apostle  is  to  declare,  that 
not  only  faith,  and  the  righteousness  of  it,  and  a  righteousness 
of  our  own  by  works,  are  inconsistent,  that  is,  as  to  our  justifi- 
cation before  God;  but  also  that  the  intermixture  of  our  own 
works,  in  seeking  after  righteousness,  as  the  means  thereof 
wholly  diverts  us  from  the  acceptance  of,  or  submission  to  the 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  3S5 

righteousness  of  God.  For  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith, 
is  not  our  own,  it  is  the  righteousness  of  God,  that  which  he 
imputes  to  us.  But  the  righteousness  of  works  is  our  own,  that 
which  is  wrought  in  us,  and  by  us.  And  as  works  have  no 
aptitude  nor  meetness  in  themselves  to  attain  or  receive  a  right- 
eousness, which  because  it  is  not  our  own,  is  imputed  to  us, 
but  are  repugnant  to  it,  as  that  which  will  cast  them  down  from 
their  legal  dignity  of  being  our  righteousness;  so  faith  has  no 
aptitude  nor  meetness  in  itself,  to  be  an  inherent  righteousness, 
or  so  to  be  esteemed,  or  as  such  to  be  imputed  to  us,  seeing  its 
principal  faculty  and  efficacy  consists  in  fixing  all  the  trust, 
confidence,  and  expectation  of  the  soul,  for  righteousness  and 
acceptation  with  God,  upon  another. 

Here  was  the  ruin  of  those  Jews:  they  judged  it  a  better,  a 
more  probable,  yea,  a  more  righteous  and  holy  way  for  them, 
constantly  to  endeavour  after  a  righteousness  of  their  own  by 
duties  of  obedience  to  the  law  of  God,  than  to  imagine  that 
they  could  come  to  acceptance  with  God  by  faith  in  another. 
For  tell  them,  and  such  as  them,  what  you  please,  if  they  have 
not  a  righteousness  of  their  own,  that  they  can  set  upon  its  legs, 
and  make  to  stand  before  God,  the  law  will  not  have  its  accom- 
plishment, and  so  will  condemn  them. 

To  demolish  this  last  fort  of  unbelief,  the  Apostle  grants  that 
the  law  must  have  its  end,  and  be  completely  fulfilled,  or  there 
is  no  appearing  for  us  as  righteous  before  God;  and  withal 
shows  them  how  this  is  done,  and  where  alone  it  is  to  be  sought 
after.  "  For  Christ,  (says  he)  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  right- 
eousness to  every  one  that  believeth,"  ver.  4.  We  need  not 
trouble  ourselves  to  inquire  in  what  various  sense  Christ  may 
be  said  to  be  ttxoi  vouu.  "the  end,  the  complement,  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  law,"  The  Apostle  suificiently  determines  his  in- 
tention, in  affirming  not  absolutely  that  he  is  the  "  end  of  the 
law,"  but  he  is  so  m  SixaioawTjv  "for  righteousness"  unto  every 
one  that  believeth.  The  matter  in  question,  is  a  righteousness 
to  justification  before  God.  And  this  is  acknowledged  to  be 
the  righteousness  which  the  law  requires.  God  looks  for  no 
righteousness  from  us,  but  what  is  prescribed  in  the  law.  The 
law  is  nothing  but  the  rule  of  righteousness;  God's  prescription 
of  a  righteousness,  and  all  the  duties  of  it  to  us.  That  we  should 
be  righteous  herewith  before  God,  was  the  first  original  end  of 
the  law.  Its  other  ends  at  present  of  the  conviction  of  sin,  and 
judging  or  condemning  for  it,  were  accidental  to  its  primitive 
constitution.  This  righteousness,  which  the  law  requires,  which 

33 


386  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

is  all  and  only  that  righteousness  which  God  requires  of  us,  the 
accomplishnnent  of  this  end  of  the  law,  the  Jews  sought  after 
by  their  own  personal  performance  of  the  works  and  duties  of 
it.  But  hereby  in  the  utmost  of  their  endeavours  they  could 
never  fulfil  this  righteousness,  nor  attain  this  end  of  the  law, 
which  yet  if  men  do  not,  they  must  perish  for  ever. 

Wherefore  the  Apostle  declares,  that  all  this  is  done  another 
way;  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  is  fulfilled,  and  its  end, 
as  to  a  righteousness  before  God,  attained,  and  that  is  in  and 
by  Christ.  For  what  the  law  required,  that  he  accomplished, 
which  is  accounted  to  every  one  that  believes. 

Herein  the  Apostle  issues  the  whole  disquisition  about  a 
righteousness  wherewith  we  may  be  justified  before  God,  and 
in  particular,  how  satisfaction  is  given  to  the  demands  of  the 
law.  That  which  we  could  not  do,  that  which  the  law  could 
not  effect  in  us,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  that 
which  we  could  not  attain  by  the  works  and  duties  of  it,  that 
Christ  has  done  for  us,  and  so  is  '•  the  end  of  the  law  for  right- 
eousness to  every  one  that  believeth." 

The  law  demands  a  righteousness  of  us;  the  accomplishment 
of  this  righteousness  is  the  end  which  it  aims  at,  and  which  is 
necessary  to  our  justification  before  God.  This  is  not  to  be  at- 
tained by  any  works  of  our  own,  by  any  righteousness  of  our 
own.  But  the  Lord  Christ  is  this  for  us,  and  to  us;  which, 
how  he  is  or  can  be  but  by  the  imputation  of  his  obedience  and 
righteousness  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  law,  I  cannot  un- 
derstand; I  am  sure  the  Apostle  does  not  declare. 

The  way  whereby  we  attain  to  this  end  of  the  law,  which 
we  cannot  do  by  our  utmost  endeavours  to  establish  our  own 
righteousness,  is  by  faith  alone,  for  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the 
law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth.^'  To  mix 
any  thing  with  faith  herein,  as  it  is  repugnant  to  the  nature  of 
faith  and  works,  with  respect  to  their  aptitude  and  meetness, 
for  the  attaining  of  a  righteousness,  so  it  is  as  directly  contra- 
dictory to  the  express  design  and  words  of  the  Apostle,  as  any 
thing  that  can  be  invented. 

Let  men  please  themselves  with  their  distinctions,  which  I 
understand  not;  (and  yet  perhaps  should  be  ashamed  to  say  so, 
but  that  I  am  persuaded  they  understand  them  not  themselves, 
by  whom  they  are  used)  or  with  cavils,  objections,  feigned  con- 
sequences, which  I  value  not;  here  I  shall  for  ever  desire  to  fix 
my  soul,  atid  herein  to  acquiesce;  namely,  that  "  Christ  is  the 
end  of  the  law  for  righteousness,  to  every  one  that  believeth." 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF   PAUL,    ETC.  387 

And  I  suppose,  that  all  they  who  understand  aright  what  it  is 
that  the  law  of  God  requires  of  them,  how  needful  it  is  that  it 
be  complied  with,  and  that  the  end  of  it  be  accomplished,  with 
the  utter  insufficiency  of  their  own  endeavours  to  those  ends, 
will  at  least,  when  the  time  of  disputing  is  over,  betake  them- 
selves to  the  same  refuge  and  rest. 

The  next  place  I  shall  consider  in  the  Epistles  of  this  Apostle 
is  1  Cor.  i.  30.  "  But  of  liim  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God 
is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification, 
and  redemption." 

The  design  of  the  Apostle  in  these  words  is  to  manifest,  that 
whatever  is  wanting  to  us  on  any  account  that  we  may  please 
God,  live  to  him,  and  come  to  the  enjoyment  of  him,  that  we 
have  in  and  by  Jesus  Christ;  and  this  on  the  part  of  God  from 
mere,  free,  and  sovereign  grace,  as  verses  25 — 29  declare.  And 
we  have  all  these  things  by  virtue  of  our  insition  or  implanta- 
tion in  him;  i%  o-vtov,  "  from,  of,  or  by  him."  He  by  his  grace 
is  the  principal  efficient  cause  hereof.  And  the  effect  is,  that 
we  are  in  Christ  Jesus;  that  is  engrafted  in  him,  or  united 
to  him,  as  members  of  his  mystical  body,  which  is  the  con- 
stant sense  of  that  expression  in  the  Scripture.  And  the  be- 
nefits which  we  receive  hereby  are  enumerated  in  the  follow- 
ing words.  But  first  the  way  whereby  we  are  made  partakers 
of  them,  or  they  are  communicated  to  us,  is  declared;  -'who  of 
God  is  made  unto  us."  It  is  so  ordained  of  God,  that  he  him- 
self shall  be  made  or  become  all  this  to  us.  Oj  i^ivqOiq  r^i^iv  arto 
0£OD,  where  arto  denotes  the  efficient  cause,  as  £5  did  before. 
But  how  is  Christ  thus  "  made  unto  us  of  God,"  or  what  act  of 
God  is  it  that  is  intended  thereby?  Socinus  says  it  is  "a  gene- 
ral act  of  the  providence  of  God,  whence  it  is  come  to  pass,  or 
is  so  fallen  out,  that  one  way  or  other  the  Lord  Christ  should 
be  said  to  be  all  this  to  us."  But  it  is  an  especial  ordinance 
and  institution  of  God's  sovereign  grace  and  wisdom,  designing 
Christ  to  be  all  this  to  us,  and  for  us,  with  actual  imputation 
thereon,  and  nothing  else,  that  is  intended.  Whatever  interest 
therefore  we  have  in  Christ,  and  whatever  benefit  we  have  by 
him,  it  all  depends  on  the  sovereign  grace  and  constitution  of 
God,  and  not  on  any  thing  in  ourselves.  Whereas  then  we  have 
no  righteousness  of  our  own,  he  is  appointed  of  God  to  be  our 
righteousness,  and  is  made  so  to  us;  which  can  be  no  other- 
wise, but  that  his  righteousness  is  made  ours,  for  he  is  made 
it  to  us  (as  he  is  likewise  the  other  things  mentioned)  so  that  all 
boasting,  that  is  in  ourselves,  should  be  utterly  excluded,  and 


388 


THE    NATURE    OF   JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 


"that  he  that  glorieth,  should  glory  in  the  Lord,"  ver.  29,  31. 
Now  there  is  such  a  righteousness,  or  such  a  way  of  being 
righteous  whereon  we  may  have  somewhat  to  glory,  Rom.  iv, 
2,  and  which  does  not  exclude  boasting,  chap.  iii.  27.  And  this 
cannot  possibly  be  but  when  our  righteousness  is  inherent  in 
us.  For  that,  however  it  may  be  procured,  or  purchased  or 
wrought  in  us,,  is  yet  our  own,  so  far  as  any  thing  can  be  our 
own,  whilst  we  are  creatures.  Tiiis  kuid  of  righteousness 
therefore  is  here  excluded.  And  the  Lord  Christ  being  so  made 
righteousness  to  us  of  God,  as  that  all  boasting  and  glorying  on 
our  part,  or  in  ourselves,  may  be  excluded,  yea,  being  made  so, 
for  this  very  end,  that  so  it  should  be,  it  can  be  no  otherwise, 
but  by  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  to  us.  For  thereby 
is  the  grace  of  God,  the  honour  of  his  person  and  mediation 
exalted,  and  all  occasion  of  glorying  in  ourselves  utterly  cut  off. 
We  desire  no  more  from  this  testimony,  but  that  whereas  we 
are  in  ourselves  destitute  of  all  righteousness  in  the  sight  of 
God,  Christ  is  by  a  gracious  act  of  divine  imputation  made  of 
God  righteousness  unto  us,  in  such  a  way  as  that  all  our  glory- 
ing ought  to  be  in  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  himself.  Bellarmine  attempts  three  answers  to  this  tes- 
timony, the  two  first  whereof  are  coincident;  and  in  the  third, 
being  on  the  rack  of  light  and  truth,  he  confesses  and  grants 
all  that  we  plead  for.  (1)  He  says,  "that  Christ  is  said  to  be 
our  righteousness,  because  he  is  the  efficient  cause  of  it,  as  God 
is  said  to  be  our  strength;  and  so  there  is  in  the  words  a  meto- 
nymy of  the  etlect  for  the  cause."  And  I  say  it  is  true,  that 
the  Lord  Christ,  by  his  Spirit,  is  the  efficient  cause  of  our  per- 
sonal inherent  righteousness.  By  his  grace  it  is  effected  and 
wrought  in  us;  he  renews  our  natures  into  the  image  of  God, 
and  without  him  we  can  do  nothing:  so  that  our  habitual  and 
actual  righteousness  is  from  him.  But  this  personal  righteousness 
is  our  sanctification  and  nothing  else.  And  ahhough  the  same 
internal  habit  of  inherent  grace,  with  operations  suitable  thereto, 
be  sometimes  called  our  sanctification,  and  sometimes  our  right- 
eousness, with  respect  to  those  operations;  yet  is  it  never  distin- 
guished into  our  sanctification  and  our  righteousness.  But  his 
being  made  righteousness  to  us  in  tliis  place,  is  absolutely  dis- 
tinct from  his  being  made  sanctification  to  us,  which  is  that  in- 
herent righteousness  which  is  wrought  in  us  by  the  Spirit  and 
grace  of  Christ.  And  his  working  personal  righteousness  in 
us,  which  is  our  sanctification,  and  the  imputation  of  his  right- 
eousness to  us,  whereby  we  are  made  righteous  before  God, 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OP    PAUL,    ETC.  389 

are  not  only  consistent,  but  the  one  of  them  cannot  be  without 
the  other. 

2.  He  pleads,  "that  Christ  is  said  to  be  made  righteousness 
to  us,  as  he  is  made  redemption.  Now  he  is  our  redemption, 
because  he  has  redeemed  us.  So  is  he  said'  to  be  made  right- 
eousness to  us,  because  by  him  we  become  righteous;"  or  as 
another  speaks,  "  because  by  him  alone  we  are  justified."  This 
is  the  same  plea  with  the  former,  namely,  that  there  is  a  meto- 
nymy of  the  effect  for  the  cause  in  all  these  expressions;  yet 
what  cause  they  intend  it  to  be,  who  expound  the  words  "by 
him  alone  we  are  justified,"  I  do  not  understand.  But  Bellar- 
mine  is  approaching  yet  nearer  the  truth,  for.  as  Christ  is  said 
to  be  made  of  God,  redemption  to  us,  because  by  his  blood  we 
are  redeemed,  or  freed  from  sin,  death,  and  hell,  by  the  ransom 
he  paid  for  us,  or  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  even  the 
forgiveness  of  sins:  so  he  is  said  to  be  made  righteousness  to 
ns,  because  through  his  righteousness  granted  to  us  of  God,  we 
are  justified;  as  God's  making  him  to  be  righteousness  to  us, 
and  our  becoming  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him;  and  the 
imputation  of  his  righteousness  to  us,  that  we  may  be  righteous 
before  God,  are  the  same. 

His  third  answer,  as  was  before  observed,  giants  the  whole 
of  what  we  plead.  For  it  is  the  same  which  he  gives  to  Jer. 
xxiii.  6,  which  place  he  conjoins  with  this,  as  of  the  same  sense 
and  importance,  giving  up  his  whole  cause  in  satisfaction  to 
them,  in  the  words  before  transcribed. 

Socinus  prefaces  his  answer  to  this  testimony  with  an  admi- 
ration, that  any  should  make  use  of  it,  or  plead  it  in  this  cause, 
it  is  so  impertinent  to  the  purpose.  And  indeed,  a  pretended 
contempt  of  the  arguments  of  his  adversaries  is  the  principal 
artifice  he  makes  use  of,  in  all  his  replies  and  evasions;  where- 
in I  am  sorry  to  see  that  he  is  followed  by  most  of  them,  who, 
together  with  him,  oppose  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ.  And  so  of  late  the  use  of  this  testimony  which  re- 
duced Bellarmine  to  so  great  a  strait,  is  adiriiredat,on  the  only 
ground  and  reason  wherewith  it  is  opposed  by  Socinns.  Yet 
are  his  exceptions  to  it  such,  that  I  cannot  also  but  a  little  on 
tlie  other  hand  wonder,  that  any  learned  man  should  be  trou- 
bled with  them,  or  seduced  by  them.  For  he  only  plea<]s, "  that 
if  Christ  be  said  to  be  made  righteousness  to  us,  because  his 
righteousness  is  imputed  to  us;  then  is  he  said  to  be  made  wis- 
dom to  us,  because  his  wisdom  is  so  imputed;  and  so  of  his 
sanctification;  which  none  will  allow  ;yea,.he  must  be  redeem- 

.'33* 


390  THE    NATURE    OF   JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

ed  for  lis,  and  his  redemption  be  imputed  to  lis."  But  there  is 
nothing  of  force,  nor  truth  in  tiiis  pretence.  For  it  is  built  only 
on  this  supposition,  that  Christ  must  be  made  to  us  of  God,  all 
these  things,  in  the  same  way  and  manner;  whereas  they  are  of 
such  different  natures,that  it  is  utterly  impossible  he  should  so  be. 
For  instance,  he  is  made  sanctification  to  us,  in  that  by  his  Spirit 
and  grace  we  are  freely  sanctified.  But  he  cannot  be  said  to  be 
made  redemption  to  us,  in  that  by  his  Spirit  and  grace  we  are 
freely  redeemed.  And,  if  he  is  said  to  be  made  righteousness 
to  us,  because  by  his  Spirit  and  grace  he  works  inherent  right- 
eousness in  us,  then  is  it  plainly  tlie  same  with  his  being  made 
sanctification  to  us.  Neither  does  he  himself  believe  that  Christ 
is  made  all  these  things  to  us  in  the  same  way  and  manner. 
And  therefore  he  does  not  assign  any  special  way  whereby  he 
is  so  made  them  all;  but  clouds  it  in  an  ambiguous  expression, 
that  he  becomes  all  these  things  to  us  "  in  the  providence  of 
God."  But  ask  him  in  particular,  how  Christ  is  made  sancti- 
fication to  us,  and  he  will  tell  you  that  it  was  by  his  doctrine 
and  example  alone,  with  some  such  general  assistance  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  as  he  will  allow.  But  now,  this  is  no  way  at  all 
whereby  Christ  was  made  redemption  to  us;  which  being  a 
thing  external,  and  not  wrought  in  us,  Christ  can  be  no  other- 
wise made  redemption  to  us,  than  by  the  imputation  to  us  of 
what  he  did,  that  we  might  be  redeemed,  or  the  reckoning  it 
on  our  account.  Not  that  he  was  redeemed. for  us,  as  he  child- 
ishly cavils,  but  that  he  did  -that  whereby  we  are  redeemed. 
Wherefore  Christ  is  made  of  God  righteousness  to  us  in  such  a 
way  and  manner,  as  the  nature  of  the  thing  requires.  Say 
some,  it  is  "because  by  him  we  are  justified."  Howbeit  the 
text  says  not,  that  by  him  we  are  justified,  but  he  is  of  God 
made  righteousness  to  us,  which  is  not  our  justification,  but  the 
ground,  cause  and  reason  whereon  we  are  justified.  Righteous- 
ness is  one  thing,  and  justification  is  another.  Wherefore  we 
must  inquire  how  we  come  to  have  that  righteousness  whereby 
we  are  justified.  And  this  the  same  Apostle  tells  us  plainly  is 
by  imputation.  "  Blessed  is  the  man  unto  whom  the  Lord  im- 
puteth  righteousness."  Rom.  iv.  6.  It  follows  then, that  "Christ 
being  made  unto  us  of  God  righteousness,"  can  have  no  other 
sense,  but  that  his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us,  which  is  what 
this  text  undeniably  confirms. 

The  truth  pleaded  for,  is  yet  more  emphatically  expressed, 
2  Cor.  V.  21.  '.^For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who 
knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  391 

in  him."  The  paraphrase  of  Anstine  on  these  words  gives  the 
sense  of  them.*  "  He  was  made  sin,  that  we  might  be  made 
righteousness,  not  our  own,  but  of  God;  not  in  ourselves,  but  in 
him;  as  he  was  made  sin,  not  his  own,  but  ours, not  in  himself, 
but  in  us."  And  the  words  of  Chrysostome  upon  this  place, 
to  the  same  purpose,  have  been  cited  before  at  large. 

To  set  out  the  greatness  of  the  grace  of  God  in  our  reconcilia- 
tion by  Christ,  he  describes  him  by  that  periphrasis  toj  ixri  yvovta 
d;uapTiav,  "  who  kuew  uo  sin,"  or  who  knew  not  sin.  He  knew 
sin  in  the  notion  or  understanding  of  its  nature;  and  he  knew 
it  experimentally  in  the  eftects  which  he  underwent  and  suffer- 
ed; but  he  knew  it  not,  that  is,  was  most  remote  from  it,  as  to 
its  commission  or  guilt.  So  that  he  ''  knew  no  sin,"  is  abso- 
lutely no  more,  but  "  he  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in 
his  mouth,"  as  it  is  expressed  1  Pet.  ii.  22;  or,  that  he  ''was 
holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  separate  from  sinners,"  Heb.  vii.  26. 
Howbeit,  there  is  an  emphasis  in  the  expression  which  is  not 
to  be  neglected.  For  as  it  is  observed  by  Chrysostome,  and  by 
sundry  learned  persons  after  him,  as  containing  an  auxesis; 

(ou;^c.  tov  fJLt]  d^ttpT'ttJ'Oi'i'a  fiovov  (^syft)  dxxa  top  fir^Ss  yj/orra  d,uapi'iav) 

"not  merely  who  did  not  sin,  but  who  did  not  know  sin;"  so 
those  who  desire  to  learn  the  excellency  of  the  grace  of  God 
herein,  will  have  an  impression  or  a  sense  of  it  on  their  minds, 
from  this  emphatical  expression,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  chose  to 
make  use  of  to  that  end,  and  the  observation  of  it  is  not  to  be 
despised. 

"  He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin;"  that  is,  say  many  exposi- 
tors, "a  sacrifice  for  sin."t  "  As  he  was  offered  for  sins,  he  is 
not  without  cause  said  to  be  made  sin,  since  under  the  law, 
even  the  animal  which  was  offered  for  sins  is  called  sin."  So 
•the  sin  and  trespass  offering  are  often  expressed  by  nxen  and 
□a'Nj  "  the  sin  and  trespass"  or  guilt.  And  I  shall  not  contend 
about  this  exposition,  because  that  signified  in  it,  is  according 
to  the  truth.  But  there  is  another  more  proper  signification  of 
the  word;  aj^aptoa  being  put  for  d,tiapT'co?io5  sin  for  a  simier;  that 
is  passively  not  actively,  not  by  inhesion  but  imputation.  For 
this  the  phrase  of  speech,  and  force  of  the  antithesis,  seem  to 

*  Ipse  peccatum  ut  nos  justitia,  non  nostra  sed  Dei,  non  in  nobis  sed  in  ipso; 
sicut  ipse  peccatum  non  suuni  sed  nostrum,  non  in  se,  sed  in  nobis  constitutum. 
Enchirid.  ad  Laurent,  cap.  4. 

t  Quemadmodum  oblatus  est  pro  peccatis,  non  immerito  peccatum  factus  dicitur, 
quia  et  bestia  in  lege  quse  pro  peccatis  offerebatur,  peccatum  nuncupatur.  Arn- 
bros.  in  locum. 


392  THE    XATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATIOIV    AS    DECLARED 

require.  Speakiiigof  another  sense,  Esiius  himself  on  the  place 
adds,  as  that  which  he  approves,*  "  The  meaning  of  this  pas- 
sage must  be  explained  according  to  the  comment  of  Chrysos- 
tooi  and  the  Greek  commentators,  who  interpret  the  expression 
sin,  emphatically,  a  great  sinner;  as  if  the  Apostle  should  say, 
for  our  sake  he  treated  him  as  sin  and  wickedness  itself;  that 
is,  as  a  man  notoriously  wicked,  as  on  whom  he  laid  the  ini- 
quities of  us  all."  And  if  this  be  the  interpretation  of  the  Greek 
scholiasts,  as  indeed  it  is,  Luther  was  not  the  first,  who  affirmed, 
that  "Christ  was  made  the  greatest  sinner,"  namely,  by  impu- 
tation. But  we  shall  allow  the  former  exposition,  provided 
that  the  true  notion  of  a  sin  offering,  or  expiatory  sacrifice,  be 
admitted.  For  although  this  neither  did,  nor  could  consist  in 
the  transfusion  of  the  inherent  sin  of  the  person  tiHhe  sacrifice; 
yet  it  did  consist  in  the  translation  of  the  guilt  of  the  sinner  to 
it,  as  is  fully  declared  Lev.  xvi.  20,  2L  Only  I  must  say,  that 
I  grant  this  signification  of  the  word  to  avoid  cotitentioi].  For 
whereas  some  say,  that  a^aprta  signifies  sin,  and  a  sacrifice  for 
sin,  it  cannot  be  allowed,  f^an  in  Kal,  signifies  to  err,  to  sin, 
to  transgress  the  law  of  God.  In  Piel  it  has  a  contrary  signi- 
fication, namely,  to  cleanse  from  sin,  or  to  make  expiation  of 
sin.  Hence  nsan  is  most  frequently  used  with  respect  to  its  de- 
rivation from  the  first  conjugation,  and  signifies  sin,  tra7isgres- 
sion  and  guilt.  But  sometimes  with  respect  to  the  second,  and 
then  it  signifies  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  to  make  expiation  of  it. 
And  so  it  is  rendered  by  the  LXX,  sometimes  by  Ixaa^oi,  Ezek. 
xliv.  27,  sometimes  i^aa-anoi,  Exod.  xxx.  10.  Ezek.  xliii.  23.  a 
propitiation,  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  Sometimes  by  ayviana, 
Num.  xix.  19.  and  i).yv<.<s^oi,  purification  or  cleansing.  But 
d^uaprta  absolutely  no  where  in  any  good  author,  nor  in  the 
Scripture,  signifies  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  unless  it  may  be  allowed 
to  do  so  in  this  one  place  alone.  For  whereas  the  LXX  render 
nN'^n  constantly  by  d^apfia,  where  it  signifies  sin;  where  it  de- 
notes an  offering  for  sin,  and  they  retain  that  word,  they  do  it 
by  rt£^c  duapriaj,  an  elliptical  expression  which  they  invented 
for  that  which  they  knew  d.uaptia  of  itself  neither  did,  nor  could 
signify,  Lev.  iv.  3,  14,  32,  35;  v.  6 — 11;  vi.  30;  viii.  2.  And 
they  never  omit  the  preposition,  unless  they  name  the  sacrifice, 

*  Hie  intellectus  cxplicandus  est  per  commentarium  Graecorum  Chrysostomi  et 
caeterorum;  quia  peccatam  emphaticas  ititerpretantur  magnum  peccatorem;  ac 
si  dicat  Apostolus,  nostri  causa  tractavit  cum  tanquam  ipsum  peccatum,  ipsuiii 
scelus,  id  est,  tanquam  hominem  insigniter  sceleratum,  ut  in  quo  posuerit  iniqui- 
tates  omnium  nostrum. 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,   ETC. 


393 


as  noexoi  tTJi  afxaptia^.  This  is  observed  also  by  the  Apostle  in 
the  New  Testament.  For  twice  expressing  the  sin-ofiering  by 
this  word,  he  uses  that  phrase  rtepc  d^uaprtaj  Rom.  viii.  3.  Heb. 
X.  6.  But  no  wliere  uses  d^apfia  to  that  pnrpose.  If  it  be  there- 
fore of  that  signification  in  this  place,  it  is  so  here  alone.  And 
whereas  some  think,  that  it  answers  Piuciilum  in  the  Latin,  it 
is  also  a  mistake,  for  the  first  signification  of  d^aptia  is  confessed 
to  be  sin,  and  they  would  have  it  supposed  that  thence  it  is 
abused  to  signify  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  But  Piaculum  is  properly 
a  sacrifice,  or  any  thing  whereby  sin  is  expiated  or  satisfaction 
is  made  for  it.  And  very  rarely  it  is  abused  to  denote  such  a 
sin  or  crime  as  deserves  public  expiation,  and  is  not  otherwise 
to  be  pardoned,  so  Virgil: 

Distulit  in  seram  commissa  Piacula  mortem. 

But  we  shall  not  contend  about  words,  whilst  we  can  agree 
about  what  is  intended. 

The  only  inquiry  is,  how  God  made  him  to  be  sin.  "He 
hath  made  him  to  be  sin;"  so  that  an  act  of  God  is  intended. 
And  this  is  elsewhere  expressed,  by  his  "  laying  all  our  iniqui- 
ties upon  him,"  or  causing  them  to  meet  on  him,  Isa.  liii.  6. 
And  this  was  by  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  him,  as  the  sins 
of  the  people  were  put  on  the  head  of  the  goat  that  they  should 
be  no  more  theirs  but  his,  so  as  that  he  was  to  carry  them 
away  from  them.  Take  "  sin"  in  either  sense  before  mention- 
ed, either  of  a  "sacrifice  for  sin,"  or  a  "sinner,"  and  the  im- 
putation of  the  guilt  of  sin,  antecedently  to  the  punishment  of 
it,  and  in  order  thereto,  must  he  understood.  For  in  every 
sacrifice  for  sin  there  was  an  imposition  of  sin  on  the  beast  to 
be  off'ered  antecedent  to  the  sacrificing  of  it,  and  therein  its 
sufl^ering  by  death.  Therefore  in  every  oflfering  for  sin,  he  that 
brought  it  was  to  put  his  hand  on  the  head  of  it.  Lev.  i.  4. 
And  that  the  transferring  of  the  guilt  of  sin  to  the  off'ering, 
was  thereby  signified,  is  expressly  declared,  Lev.  xvi.  21. 
Wherefore  if  God  made  the  Lord  Christ  a  sin  offering  for  us, 
it  was  by  the  imputation  of  tlie  guilt  of  sin  to  him  antece- 
dently to  his  suflering.  Nor  could  any  offering  be  made  for 
sin,  without  a  typical  translation  of  the  guilt  of  sin  to  it.  And 
therefore  when  an  offering  was  made  for  the  expiation  of  the 
guilt  of  an  uncertain  murder,  those  who  were  to  make  it  by 
the  law,  namely,  the  elders  of  the  city  that  were  next  to  the 
place  where  the  man  was  slain,  were  not  to  offer  a  sacrifice, 
because  there  was  none  to  confess  guilt  over  it,  or  to  lay  guilt 


394  THE   NATURE    OF   JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

upon  it;  but  whereas  the  neck  of  an  heifer  was  to  be  stricken 
off,  to  declare  the  punishment  due  to  blood,  they  were  to  wash 
their  hands  over  it  to  testify  their  own  innocency,  Deut.  xxi. 
1 — 8.  But  a  sacrifice  for  sin  without  the  imputation  of  guilt 
there  could  not  be.  And  if  the  word  be  taken  in  the  second 
sense, namely, for  a  sinner,  that  is, by  imputation, and  in  God's 
esteem,  it  must  be  by  the  imputation  of  guilt.  For  none  can 
in  any  sense  be  denominated  a  sinner  from  mere  sutfering. 
None  indeed  say,  that  Christ  was  made  sin,  by  the  imputation 
of  punishment  to  him,  which  has  no  proper  sense;  but  they 
say,  sin  was  imputed  to  him  as  to  punishment,  which  is  in- 
deed to  say,  that  the  guilt  of  sin  was  imputed  to  him.  For 
the  guilt  of  sin,  is  its  respect  to  punishment,  or  the  obligation 
to  punishment  which  attends  it.  And  that  any  one  should  be 
punished  for  sin  without  the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  it  to 
him,  is  impossible;  and  were  it  possible  would  be  unjust.  For 
it  is  not  possible  that  any  one  should  be  punished  for  sin  pro- 
perly, and  yet  that  sin  be  none  of  his.  And  if  it  be  not  his  by 
inhesion,  it  can  be  his  no  other  way  but  by  imputation.  One 
may  sutler  on  the  occasion  of  the  sin  of  another,  that  is  no 
way  made  his,  but  he  cannot  be  punished  for  it;  for  punish- 
ment is  the  recompense  of  sin  on  account  of  its  guilt.  And 
were  it  possible,  where  is  the  righteousness  of  punishing  any 
one  for  that  which  no  way  belongs  to  him?  Besides,  imputa- 
tion of  sin  and  punishing  are  distinct  acts,  the  one  preceding 
the  other,  and  therefore  tlie  former  is  only  of  the  guilt  of  sin; 
wherefore  the  Lord  Christ  was  made  sin  for  us  by  the  impu- 
tation of  the  guilt  of  our  sins  to  him. 

But  it  is  said,  that  "  if  the  guilt  of  sin  were  imputed  to 
Christ,  he  is  excluded  from  all  possibility  of  merit,  for  he  suf- 
fered but  what  was  his  due;  and  so  the  whole  work  of  Christ's 
satisfaction  is  subverted.  This  must  be  so,  if  God  in  judg- 
ment reckoned  him  guilty  and  a  sinner.'^  But  there  is  an 
ambiguity  in  these  expressions.  If  it  be  meant  that  God  in 
judgment  reckoned  him  guilty  and  a  sinner  inherently  in  his 
own  person,  no  such  thing  is  intended.  But  God  laid  all  our 
sins  on  him,  and  in  judgment  spared  him  not,  as  to  what  was 
due  to  them.  And  so  he  suffered  not  what  was  his  due  upon 
his  own  account,  but  what  was  due  to  our  sin,  which  it  is  im- 
piety to  deny;  for  if  it  were  not  so,  he  died  in  vain,  and  we 
are  still  in  our  sins.  And  as  his  satisfaction  consists  herein, 
nor  could  be  without  it,  so  it  does  not  in  the  least  derogate 
from  his  merit.     For  supposing  the  infinhe  dignity  of  his  per- 


IN    THE    EriSTLES     OF    FAUL,    ETC.  395 

son,  and  his  voluntary  susception  of  our  sin  to  answer  for  it, 
which  ahered  not  his  state  and  condition,  his  obedience  therein 
was  highly  meritorious. 

In  answer  hereto,  and  by  virtue  hereof,  we  are  "  made  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  him."  This  was  the  end  of  his  being 
made  sin  for  us.  And  by  whom  are  we  so  made  ?  it  is  by  God 
himself,  for  it  is  "  God  that  justifieth,"  Rom.  viii.  33.  It  is 
God  who  imputes  righteousness;  chap.  iv.  6.  Wherefore  it  is 
the  act  of  God  in  our  justification  that  is  intended.  And  to  be 
made  the  righteousness  of  God,  is  to  be  made  righteous  before 
God,  though  emphatically  expressed  by  the  abstract  for  the 
concrete,  to  answer  what  was  said  before  of  Christ  being  made 
sin  for  us.  To  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God,  is  to  be 
justified;  and  to  be  made  it  so  in  him,  as  he  was  made  sin  for 
us,  is  to  be  justified  by  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  to 
us,  as  our  sin  was  imputed  to  him. 

No  man  can  assign  any  other  way  whereby  he  was  made 
sin,  especially  his  being  made  so  by  God,  but  by  God's  laying 
all  our  iniquities  upon  him,  that  is,  imputing  our  sin  to  him. 
How  then  are  we  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him? 
By  the  infusion  of  a  habit  of  grace,  say  the  Papists  generally; 
then  by  the  rule  of  the  antithesis,  he  must  be  made  sin  for  us, 
by  the  infusion  of  a  habit  of  sin,  which  would  be  a  blasphem- 
ous imagination.  By  his  meriting,  procuring,  and  purchasing 
righteousness,  for  us,  say  others:  so  possibly  we  might  be 
made  righteous  hy  him;  but  so  we  cannot  be  made  righteous 
in  him.  This  can  only  be  by  his  righteousness  as  we  are  in 
him,  or  united  to  him.  To  be  righteous  in  him  is  to  be  right- 
eous with  his  righteousness,  as  we  are  one  mystical  person 
with  him.     Wherefore, 

To  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Christ  as  he  was 
made  sin  for  us,  and  because  he  was  so,  can  be  no  other  but 
to  be  made  righteous  by  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness 
to  us,  as  we  are  in  him  or  united  to  him.  All  other  expositions 
of  these  words  are  both  jejune  and  forced,  leading  the  mind 
from  the  first,  plain,  obvious  sense  of  them. 

Bellarmine  excepts  to  this  interpretation,  and  it  is  his  fifth 
argument  against  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 
"  If  the  righteousness  of  Christ  be  truly  imputed  to  us,  so  that 
through  it  we  are  reckoned  and  esteemed  rigliteous,  as  if  it 
were  properly  our  own  inherent  and  formal  righteousness,  we 
ought  to  be  reckoned  and  esteemed  not  less  righteous  than 
Christ  himself,  and  consequently  ought  to  be  called  and  es- 


396 


THE    NATURE     OF    JUSTIFICATION   AS    DECLARED 


teemed  redeemers  and  saviours  of  the  world;  which  is  the 
height  of  absurdity."*  Lib.  ii.  cap.  7.  de  Justificatione.  So 
full  an  answer  has  been  returned  hereto,  and  that  so  fre- 
quently, by  Protestant  divines,  that  I  would  not  have  men- 
tioned it,  but  that  divers  among  ourselves  are  pleased  to  bor- 
row it  from  him,  and  make  use  of  it.  "For,"  say  they,  "  if 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  be  imputed  to  us  so  as  thereby  to 
be  made  ours,  then  are  we  as  righteous  as  Christ  himself,  be- 
cause we  are  righteous  with  his  righteousness."  Ans.  1.  These 
things  are  plainly  affirmed  in  the  Scripture,  that  as  to  ourselves, 
and  in  ourselves,  "  we  are  all  as  an  unclean  thing,  and  all  our 
righteousnesses  are  as  filthy  rags,"  Isa.  Ixiv.  6,  on  the  one 
hand;  and  that  "in  the  Lord  we  have  righteousness  and 
strength,  in  the  Lord  we  are  justified  and  do  glory,"  Isa. 
xlv.  24,  25,  on  the  other:  that  "if  we  say  we  have  no  sin, 
we  deceive  ourselves;"  and  yet  that  "we  are  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  in  Christ."  Wherefore  these  things  are  consistent 
whatever  cavils  the  wit  of  men  can  raise  against  them;  and 
so  they  must  be  esteemed,  unless  we  will  comply  with  Soci- 
nus's  rule  of  interpretation,  namely,  "  that  where  any  thing 
seems  repugnant  to  our  reason,  though  it  be  never  so  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Scripture,  we  are  not  to  admit  of  it,  but  find 
out  some  interpretation  though  never  so  forced  to  bring  the 
sense  of  the  words  to  our  reason."  Wherefore  (2)  notwith- 
standing the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  us, 
and  our  being  made  righteous  therewith,  we  are  sinners  in 
ourselves,  (the  Lord  knov/s  greatly  so,  the  best  of  us)  and  so 
cannot  be  said  to  be  as  righteous  as  Christ,  but  only  to  be 
made  righteous  in  him,  who  are  sinners  in  ourselves.  (3)  To 
say,  that  we  are  as  righteous  as  Christ,  is  to  make  a  compa- 
rison between  the  personal  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  our 
personal  righteousness,  if  the  comparison  be  of  things  of  the 
same  kind.  But  this  is  foolish  and  impious;  for  notwithstand- 
ing all  our  personal  righteousness,  we  are  sinful;  he  knew  no 
sin.  And  if  the  comparison  be  between  Christ's  personal  in- 
herent righteousness,  and  righteousness  imputed  to  us,  inhe- 
sion and  imputation  being  things  of  diverse  kinds,  it  is  ground- 
less and  of  no  consequence.     Christ  was  actively  righteous, 

*  Quinto  refellitur,  quoniain  si  verc  nobis  imputetur  justitia  Christi  ut  per  eaiu 
justi  liabeainur  ac  ccnsereniur,  ac  si  proprie  nostra  esset  intrinseca  lormalisque 
justitia,  profccto  non  minus  justi  liaberi  ct  censcri  debereinus  qiiani  ipse  Christus: 
proinde  debcremus  dici  atquc  babcri  Redemptorcs,  et  Salvatores  raundi,  quod  est 
absurdissimum. 


IN    THE    EPISTLES   OP   PAUL,    ETC.  397 

we  are  passively  so.  When  our  sin  was  imputed  to  him,  he 
did  not  thereby  become  a  sinner  as  we  are,  actively  and  in- 
herently a  sinner,  but  passively  only,  and  in  God's  estimation. 
As  he  was  made  sin,  yet  knew  no  sin,  so  we  are  made  right- 
eous, yet  are  sinful  in  ourselves.  (4)  The  righteousness  of 
Christ  as  it  was  his  personally,  was  the  righteousness  of  the 
Son  of  God;  in  which  respect  it  had  in  itself  an  infinite  per- 
fection and  value ;  but  it  is  imputed  to  us  only  with  respect  to 
our  personal  want,  not  as  it  was  satisfactory  for  all,  but  as 
our  souls  stand  in  need  of  it,  and  are  made  partakers  of  it. 
There  is  therefore  no  ground  for  any  such  comparison.  (5)  As  to 
what  is  added  by  Bellarmine  that  we  may  hereon  be  said  to  be 
redeemers  and  saviours  of  the  world,  the  absurdity  of  the 
assertion  falls  upon  himself;  we  are  not  concerned  in  it.  For 
he  affirms  directly,  lib.  i.  de  Purgator.  cap.  14,  that  a  "man 
may  be  rightly  called  his  own  redeemer  and  saviour,^'  which 
he  endeavours  to  prove  from  Dan.  iv.  And  some  of  his  church 
affirm  that  the  saints  may  be  called  the  redeemers  of  others, 
though  improperly.  But  we  are  not  concerned  in  these  things; 
seeing  from  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  it 
follows  only  that  those  to  whom  it  is  imputed  are  redeemed 
and  saved,  not  at  all  that  they  are  redeemers  and  saviours.  It 
belongs  also  to  the  vindication  of  this  testimony  to  show  the 
vanity  of  his  seventh  argument  in  the  same  case,  because  that 
also  is  made  use  of  by  some  among  ourselves,  and  it  is  this. 
"  If  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us,  we  may  be 
truly  said  to  be  righteous  and  the  sons  of  God,  then  may 
Christ  by  the  imputation  of  our  unrighteousness,  be  said  to  be 
a  sinner  and  a  child  of  the  devil."  Ans.  (1)  That  which  the 
Scripture  affirms  concerning  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to 
Christ  is  that  "  he  was  made  sin  for  us."  This  the  Greek  ex- 
positors, Chrysostom,Theophylact  and  Oecumenius  with  many 
others  take  for  a  siniier.  But  all  affirm  that  denomination  to 
be  taken  from  imputation  only;  he  had  sin  imputed  to  him, 
and  underwent  the  punishment  due  to  it,  as  we  have  right- 
eousness imputed  to  us,  and  enjoy  the  benefit  of  it.  (2)  The 
imputation  of  sin  to  Christ,  did  not  carry  along  with  it  any 
thing  of  the  pollution  or  filth  of  sin  to  be  communicated  to  him 
by  transfusion,  a  thing  impossible;  so  that  no  denomination 
can  thence  arise  which  should  include  in  it  any  respect  to  them; 
a  thought  hereof  is  impious  and  dishonourable  to  the  Son  of 
God.  But  his  being  made  sin  through  the  imputation  of  the 
guilt  of  sin,  is  his  honour  and  glory.     (3)  The  imputation  of 

34 


398  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

the  sin  of  fornicators,  idolaters,  adulterers,  &c.  such  as  the 
Corinthians  were  before  their  conversion  to  Christ,  does  not  on 
any  ground  bring  him  under  a  denomination  from  those  sins. 
For  they  were  so  in  themselves  actively,  inherently,  subjec- 
tively, and  thence  were  so  called.  But  that  he  who  "  knew 
no  sin,"  voluntarily  taking  on  him  to  answer  for  the  guilt  of 
those  sins,  which  in  him  was  an  act  of  righteousness  and  the 
highest  obedience  to  God,  should  be  said  to  be  an  idolater,  &c. 
is  a  fond  imagination.  The  denomination  of  a  sinner  from  sin 
inherent,  actually  committed,  defiling  the  soul,  is  a  reproach, 
and  significative  of  the  utmost  un worthiness;  but  even  the  de- 
nomination of  a  sinner,  by  the  imputation  of  sin,  without  the 
least  personal  guilt  or  defilement,  being  undergone  by  him  to 
whom  it  is  imputed,  in  an  act  of  the  highest  obedience,  and 
tending  to  the  greatest  glory  of  God,  is  highly  honourable  and 
glorious.  But  (4)  the  imputation  of  sin  to  Christ,  was  ante- 
cedent to  any  real  union  between  him  and  sinners,  whereon 
he  took  their  sin  on  him,  as  he  would,  and  for  what  ends  he 
would.  But  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  to  believers, 
is  consequential  in  order  of  nature  to  their  union  with  him, 
whereby  it  becomes  theirs  in  a  peculiar  manner;  so  that  there 
is  not  a  parity  of  reason  that  he  should  be  esteemed  a  sinner, 
as  that  they  should  be  accounted  righteous.  And  (5)  we  ac- 
quiesce in  this,  that  on  the  imputation  of  sin  to  Christ,  it  is 
said  that  "  God  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,"  which  he  could 
not  be,  but  thereby;  and  he  was  so  by  an  act  transient  in  its 
effects,  for  a  time  only,  that  time  wherein  he  underwent  the 
punishment  due  to  it.  But  on  the  imputation  of  his  righteous- 
ness to  us,  we  are  made  the  righteousness  of  God  with  an 
everlasting  righteousness  that  abides  ours  always.  (6)  To  be 
a  child  of  the  devil  by  sin,  is  to  do  the  works  of  the  devil, 
John  viii.  44.  But  the  Lord  Christ  in  taking  our  sins  upon 
hum,  when  imputed  to  him,  did  the  work  of  God  in  the  highest 
act  of  holy  obedience,  evidencing  himself  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  thereby,  and  destroying  the  works  of  the  devil.  So  foolish 
and  impious  is  it,  to  conceive  that  any  absolute  change  of  state 
or  relation  in  him  ensued  thereon. 

That  by  the  "righteousness  of  God"  in  this  place,  our  own 
faith  and  obedience  according  to  the  gospel,  as  some  would 
have  it,  are  intended,  is  so  alien  from  the  scope  of  the  place, 
and  sense  of  the  words,  that  I  shall  not  particularly  examine 
it.  The  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed  to  faith,  and  received 
by  faith,  and  is  not  therefore  faith  itself.     And  the  force  of  the 


IN   THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  399 

antithesis  is  quite  perverted  by  this  conceit.  For  where  is  it 
in  this,  that  he  was  made  sin  by  the  imputation  of  our  sin  to 
him,  and  we  are  made  righteousness,  by  the  imputation  of  our 
own  faith  and  obedience  to  ourselves.^  But  as  Christ  had  no 
concern  in  sin,  but  as  God  made  him  sin,  it  was  never  in  him 
inherently;  so  have  we  no  interest  in  this  righteousness,  it  is 
not  in  us  inherently,  but  only  is  imputed  to  us.  Besides,  the 
act  of  God,  in  making  us  righteous,  is  his  justifying  of  us. 
But  this  is  not  by  the  infusion  of  the  habit  of  faith  and  obedi- 
ence, as  we  have  proved.  And  what  act  of  God  is  intended 
by  them,  who  affirm,  that  the  righteousness  of  God  which  we 
are  made,  is  our  own  righteousness,  I  know  not.  The  consti- 
tution of  the  gospel  law  it  cannot  be;  for  that  makes  no  man 
righteous.  And  the  persons  of  believers  are  the  object  of  this 
act  of  God,  and  that  as  they  are  considered  in  Christ. 

The  epistle  of  the  same  Apostle  to  the  Galatians,  is  wholly 
designed  to  the  vindication  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
Christ,  without  the  works  of  the  law,  with  the  use  and  means 
of  its  improvement.  The  sum  of  his  v/hole  design  is  laid 
down  in  the  repetition  of  his  words  to  the  Apostle  Peter,  on 
the  occasion  of  his  failure,  there  related.  Gal.  ii.  16.  "  Know- 
ing that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by 
the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  even  we  have  believed  on  Jesus 
Christ  that  we  might  be  justified  by  the  faith  of  Christ,  and 
not  by  the  works  of  the  law;  for  by  the  works  of  the  law, 
shall  no  flesh  be  justified." 

That  which  he  here  asserts,  was  such  a  known,  such  a  fun- 
damental principle  of  truth  among  all  believers,  that  their  con- 
viction and  knowledge  of  it,  was  the  ground  and  occasion  of 
their  transition,  and  passing  over  from  Judaism  to  the  gospel, 
and  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  thereby. 

And  in  the  words  the  Apostle  determines  that  great  inquiry, 
how,  or  by  what  means  a  man  is,  or  may  be  justified  before 
God.  The  subject  spoken  of  is  expressed  indefinitely;  "a  man," 
that  is,  any  man,  a  Jew,  or  a  Gentile,  a  believer,  or  an  unbe- 
liever ;  the  Apostle  that  spake,  and  they  to  whom  he  spake ; 
the  Galatians  to  whom  he  wrote,  who  also  for  some  time  had 
believed  and  made  profession  of  the  gospel. 

The  answer  given  to  the  question  is  both  negative  and  posi- 
tive, both  asserted  with  the  highest  assurance,  and  as  the  com- 
mon faith  of  all  Christians,  except  those  who  had  been  carried 
aside  from  it  by  seducers.  He  asserts,  that  this  is  not,  this 
cannot  be  "  by  the  works  of  the  law."     What  is  intended  by 


i 


400  THE    NATURE     OF   JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

"  the  law"  in  these  disputations  of  the  Apostle,  has  been  be- 
fore declared  and  evinced.  The  law  of  Moses  is  sometimes 
signally  intended;  not  absolutely,  but  as  it  was  the  present 
instance  of  men's  cleaving  to  the  law  of  righteousness,  and  not 
submitting  themselves  thereon  to  the  righteousness  of  God, 
But  that  the  consideration  of  the  moral  law,  and  the  duties  of 
it,  is  in  this  argument  any  where  excepted  by  him,  is  a  weak 
imagination;  yea,  it  would  except  the  ceremonial  law  itself; 
for  the  observation  of  it,  whilst  it  was  in  force,  was  a  duty  of 
the  moral  law. 

And  "  the  works  of  the  law,"  are  the  works  and  duties  of 
obedience  which  this  law  of  God  requires,  performed  in  the 
manner  that  it  prescribes,  namely,  in  faith,  and  out  of  love  to 
God  above  all,  as  has  been  proved.  To  say,  that  the  Apostle 
excludes  only  works  absolutely  perfect,  which  none  ever  did, 
or  could  perform  since  the  entrance  of  sin,  is  to  suppose  him  to 
dispute  with  great  earnestness,  and  many  arguments,  against 
that  which  no  man  asserted,  and  which  he  does  not  once  men- 
tion in  all  his  discourse.  Nor  can  he  be  said  to  exclude  only 
works  that  are  looked  on  as  meritorious,  seeing  he  excludes  all 
works  that  there  may  be  no  place  for  merit  in  our  justification, 
as  has  also  been  proved.  Nor  did  these  Galatians,  whom  he 
writes  to,  and  convinces  of  their  error,  look  for  justification  from 
any  works,  but  such  as  they  performed  then,  when  they  were 
believers.  So  that  all  sorts  of  works  are  excluded  from  any 
interest  in  our  justification,  and  so  much  weight  does  the  Apos- 
tle lay  on  this  exclusion  of  works  from  our  justification,  that 
he  affirms  that  the  admittance  of  it  overthrows  the  whole  gospel, 
ver.  21.  "For,"  says  he,  "  if  righteousness  be  by  the  law,  then 
is  Christ  dead  in  vain;"  and  it  is  dangerous  venturing  on  so 
sharp  a  fence. 

Not  this,  or  that  sort  of  works  ;  not  this,  or  that  manner  of 
the  performance  of  them;  not  this,  or  that  kind  of  interest  in 
our  justification,  but  all  works  of  what  sort  soever,  and  how- 
ever performed,  are  excluded  from  any  kind  of  consideration 
in  our  justification,  as  our  works  or  duties  of  obedience.  For 
these  Galatians  whom  the  Apostle  reproves,  desired  no  more, 
but  that  in  the  justification  of  a  believer,  "  works  of  the  law," 
or  duties  of  obedience,  might  be  admitted  into  a  conjunction  or 
copartnership  with  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  that  they  would 
exclude  faith  in  him,  and  assign  justification  to  works  without 
it,  nothing  is  intimated,  and  it  is  a  foolish  imagination.  In  op- 
position hereto  he  positively  ascribes  our  justification  to  faith 


IN    THE   EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  401 

in  Christ  alone:  ''not  by  works,  but  by  faith"  is  by  faith  alone. 
That  the  particles  iav  fj.*;  are  not  exceptive,  but  adversative, 
has  not  only  been  undeniably  proved  by  Protestant  divines, 
but  is  acknowledged  by  those  of  the  Roman  church,  who  pre- 
tend to  any  modesty  in  this  controversy.  The  words  of  Estius 
on  this  place  deserve  to  be  transcribed.  According  to  his  usual 
candour  and  ingenuousness,  he  remarks,*  "  The  sense  of  this 
passage  is  obscured  by  the  particle  nisi,  (by  which  the  Vulgate 
renders  lav  jxr,,  instea:d  of  sed  or  sed  tantum)  which  according 
to  its  strict  acceptation,  implies  an  exception  to  what  precedes; 
as  if  the  meaning  were  '  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of 
the  law  unless  faith  in  Christ  be  added  to  them,  but  if  faith  be 
added,  then  he  is  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law.'  But  as  this 
sense  divides  justification,  attributing  it  partly  to  works  and 
partly  to  faith,  contrary  to  the  clear  and  positive  meaning  of  the 
Apostle,  it  is  evident  that  it  should  be  rejected  as  opposed  to 
the  meaning  and  object  of  the  Apostle.  It  is  clear  that  the 
particle  tiisi  is  frequently  used  in  Scripture  in  an  adversative 
sense,  as  synonymous  with  sed  tantum." 

It  is  not  probable  that  we  shall  have  an  end  of  contending  in 
this  world,  when  men  will  not  acquiesce  in  such  plain  deter- 
minations of  controversies  given  by  the  Holy  Ghost  himself. 

The  interpretation  of  this  place  given,  as  the  meaning  of  the 
Apostle,  that  men  cannot  be  justified  by  those  works  which 
they  cannot  perform,  that  is,  works  absolutely  perfect;  but  may 
be  so,  and  are  so,  by  those  which  they  can,  and  do  perform,  if 
not  in  their  own  strength,  yet  by  the  aid  of  grace :  and  that 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus  which  the  Apostle  opposes  absolutely  to 
all  works  whatever,  includes  in  it  all  those  works  which  he 
excludes,  and  that  with  respect  to  that  end  or  eff"ect  with  re- 
spect whereto  they  are  excluded,  cannot  well  be  supposed  to 
be  suitable  to  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 

Ephes.  ii.  8 — 10.  "  For  by  grace  ye  are  saved  through  faith, 
and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God ;  not  of  works, 
lest  any  man  should  boast.     For  we  are  his  workmanship 

*  Sententiam  reddit  obscuram  particula  Nisi,  quae  si  proprie  ut  Latinis  auribus 
sonat  accipiatur,  exceptionem  facit  ab  eo  quod  praecedit,  ut  sensus  sit  hominem 
non  justificari  ex  operibus  legis,  nisi  fides  in  Christum  ad  ea  opera  accedat,  qu£P 
si  accesserit  justificari  sum  per  legis  opera.  Sed  cum  hie  sensus  justificationem 
dividat,  partim  earn  tribuens  operibus  legis,  partim  fidei  Christi,  quod  est  contra 
definitam  et  absolutam  Apostoli  sententiam,  manifestum  est,  interpretationera  il- 
1am  tanquam  apostolico  sensui  et  scopo  contrariam  omnino  repudiandam  esse. 
Verum  constat  voculam  {nisi)  frequenter  in  scripturis  adversative  sumi,  ut  idem 
valeat  quod  sed  tantunu 

34* 


402  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which  God  hath  fore- 
ordained that  we  should  walk  in  them." 

Unless  it  had  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  to  express 
before  hand,  and  to  reject  all  the  evasions  and  subterfuges, 
which  the  wit  of  man  in  after  ages  could  invent,  to  pervert  the 
doctrine  of  our  justification  before  God,  it  is  impossible  they 
could  have  been  more  plainly  anticipated  than  they  are  in  this 
context.  If  we  may  take  a  little  unprejudiced  consideration  of 
it,  I  suppose  what  is  affirmed  will  be  evident. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  but  that  the  design  of  the  Apostle  from 
the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  to  the  end  of  verse  11,  is  to  de- 
clare the  way  whereby  lost  and  condemned  sinners  come  to  be 
delivered,  and  translated  out  of  that  condition  into  an  estate  of 
acceptance  with  God,  and  eternal  salvation  thereon.  And 
therefore  in  the  first  place,  he  fully  describes  their  natural  state, 
with  their  being  obnoxious  to  the  wrath  of  God  thereby.  For 
such  was  the  method  of  this  Apostle.  To  the  declaration  of 
the  grace  of  God  in  any  kind,  he  usually,  yea,  constantly  pre- 
mised the  consideration  of  our  sin,  misery,  and  ruin.  Others 
now  like  not  this  method  so  well.  Howbeit  this  hinders  not, 
but  that  it  was  his.  To  this  purpose  he  declares  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  that  they  were  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,"  express- 
ing the  power  that  sin  had  on  their  souls,  as  to  spiritual  life, 
and  all  the  actions  of  it;  but  withal  that  they  lived  and  walk- 
ed in  sin,  and  on  all  accounts  were  the  "  children  of  wrath," 
or  subject  and  liable  to  eternal  condemnation,  verses  1 — 3. 
What  such  persons  can  do  towards  their  own  deliverance, 
there  are  many  terms  found  out  to  express,  all  passing  my  un- 
derstanding, seeing  the  entire  design  of  the  Apostle  is  to  prove, 
that  they  can  do  nothing  at  all.  But  another  cause,  or  other 
causes  of  it,  he  finds  out,  and  that  in  direct  express  opposition 
to  any  thing  that  may  be  done  by  ourselves  to  that  end.  'o  Sb 
0£os  ft^ovaioi  wv  £v  £%s£o,  vcrsc  4.  It  is  not  a  work  for  us  to  un- 
dertake; it  is  not  what  we  can  contribute  any  thing  to;  "but 
God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy."  The  adversative  includes  an  op- 
position to  every  thing  on  our  part,  and  ascribes  the  whole 
work  to  God.  Would  men  have  rested  on  this  divine  revela- 
tion, the  church  of  God  had  been  free  from  many  of  those  per- 
verse opinions  and  wrangling  disputes,  which  it  has  been  pes- 
tered with.  But  they  will  not  so  easily  part  with  thoughts  of 
some  kind  of  interest  in  being  the  authors  of  their  own  happi- 
ness. Wherefore  two  things  we  may  observe  in  the  Apostle's 
assigning  of  the  causes  of  our  deUverance  from  a  state  of  sin, 
and  acceptance  with  God. 


IN    THE    EPISTLES   OF   PAUL,  ETC.  403 

1.  That  he  assigns  the  whole  of  this  work  absolutely  to 
grace,  love,  and  mercy,  and  that  with  an  exclusion  of  the  con- 
sideration of  any  thing  on  our  part,  as  we  shall  see  immedi- 
ately, ver.  5,  8. 

2.  He  magnifies  this  grace  in  a  marvellous  manner.  For 
(1)  He  expresses  it  by  all  names  and  titles  whereby  it  is  signi- 
fied as  iXsoi,  ayajifj,  x°-?''ii  xpv'^'^°'^vh  "  Hiercy,  love,  grace,  and 
kindness."  For  he  would  have  us  to  look  only  to  grace 
herein.  (2)  He  ascribes  such  adjuncts,  and  gives  such  epithetSp 
to  that  divine  mercy  and  grace  which  is  the  sole  cause  of  our 
deliverance  in  and  by  Jesus  Christ,  as  render  it  singular,  and 
herein  solely  to  be  adored,     n^ovaco?  h  iXm;  6ta  tT^v  Tto'Kxrjv 

ayartr^v  —  rrtspjSaXTicof    fiXovto;    t'jjj    xafiitoi.        "  Ricll    in    mcrcy;" 

"  great  love  wherewith  he  loved  us;"  "  the  exceeding  riches 
of  his  grace,"  in  his  kindness  towards  us,  ver.  4 — 7.  It  cannot 
reasonably  be  denied,  that  the  Apostle  designs  deeply  to  affect 
the  mind  and  heart  of  believers  with  a  sense  of  the  grace  and 
love  of  God  in  Christ,  as  the  only  cause  of  their  justification 
before  God.  I  think  no  words  can  express  those  conceptions 
of  the  mind,  which  this  representation  of  grace  suggests. 
Whether  they  think  it  any  part  of  their  duty  to  be  like  mind- 
ed, and  comply  with  the  Apostle  in  this  design,  who  scarce 
ever  mention  the  grace  of  God,  unless  it  be  in  a  way  of  dimi- 
nution from  its  efficacy,  and  to  whom  such  ascriptions  to  it  as 
are  here  made  by  him,  are  a  matter  of  contempt,  is  not  hard 
to  judge. 

But  it  will  be  said  these  are  good  words  indeed,  but  they  are 
only  general;  there  is  nothing  of  argument  in  all  this  adoring 
of  the  grace  of  God  in  the  work  of  our  salvation.  It  may  be, 
so  it  seems  to  many.  But  yet  to  speak  plainly,  there  is  to  me 
more  argument  in  this  one  consideration,  namely,  of  the  as- 
cription made  in  this  cause  to  the  grace  of  God  in  this  place, 
than  in  a  hundred  sophisms,  suited  neither  to  the  expressions 
of  the  Scripture,  nor  the  experience  of  them  that  believe.  He 
that  is  possessed  with  a  due  apprehension  of  the  grace  of  God, 
as  here  represented,  and  under  a  sense  that  it  was  therein  the 
design  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  render  it  glorious,  and  alone  to  be 
trusted  to,  will  not  easily  be  induced  to  concern  himself  in 
those  additional  supplies  to  it  from  our  own  works  and  obedi- 
ence, which  some  would  suggest  to  him.  But  we  may  yet 
look  further  into  the  words. 

The  case  which  the  Apostle  states,  the  inquiry  which  he  has 
in  hand,  whereon  he  determines  as  to  the  truth,  whereia  he  in- 


404  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

structs  the  Ephesiaiis,  and  in  them  the  whole  church  of  God, 
is,  How  a  lost  condemned  sinner  may  come  to  be  accepted 
with  God,  and  thereon  saved.  And  this  is  the  sole  inquiry 
wherein  we  are,  or  intend  in  this  controversy  to  be  concerned. 
Further  we  will  not  proceed,  either  upon  the  invitation  or  pro- 
vocation of  any.  Concerning  this,  his  position  and  determina- 
tion is,  that  we  are  saved  by  grace. 

This  first  he  occasionally  interposes  in  his  enumeration  of 
the  benefits  we  receive  by  Christ,  ver.  5.  But  not  content 
therewith,  he  again  directly  asserts  it,  ver.  8,  in  the  same 
words;  for  he  seems  to  have  considered  how  slow  men  would 
be  in  the  admission  of  this  truth,  which  at  once  deprives  them 
of  all  boastings  in  themselves. 

What  it  is  that  he  intends  by  our  being  saved,  must  be  in- 
quired into.  It  would  not  be  prejudicial  to,  but  rather  advance 
the  truth  we  plead  for,  if  by  our  being  saved,  eternal  salvation 
were  intended.  But  that  cannot  be  the  sense  of  it  in  this 
place,  otherwise  than  as  that  salvation  is  included  in  the  causes 
of  it,  which  are  efi'ectual  in  this  life.  Nor  do  I  think  that  in 
that  expression,  "  by  grace  ye  are  saved,"  our  justification 
only  is  intended,  although  it  be  so  principally.  Conversion  to 
God  and  sanctification  are  also  included  therein,  as  is  evident 
from  ver.  5,  6.  And  they  are  no  less  of  sovereign  grace,  than 
is  our  justification  itself  But  the  Apostle  speaks  of  what  the 
Ephesians  beUig  now  believers,  and  by  virtue  of  their  being 
so,  were  made  partakers  of  in  this  life.  This  is  manifest  in  the 
whole  context.  For  having  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter 
described  their  condition,  what  it  was  in  common  with  all  the 
posterity  of  Adam  by  nature,  ver.  1 — 3,  he  moreover  declares 
their  condition  in  particular,  in  opposition  to  that  of  the  Jews, 
as  they  were  Gentiles,  Idolaters,  Atheists,  ver.  11,  12.  Their 
present  delivery  by  Jesus  Christ  from  this  whole  miserable 
state  and  condition,  that  which  they  were  under  in  common 
with  all  mankind,  and  that  which  was  a  peculiar  aggravation 
of  its  misery  in  themselves,  is  that  which  he  intends  by  their 
being  saved.  That  which  was  principally  designed  in  the  de- 
scription of  this  state  is,  that  therein  and  thereby  they  were 
liable  to  the  wrath  of  God,  guilty  before  him,  and  obnoxious 
to  his  judgment.  This  he  expresses  in  the  declaration  of  it, 
ver.  3,  answerable  to  that  method,  and  those  grounds,  he 
every  where  proceeds  on  in  declaring  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion. 

Rom.  iii.  19—24.  Tit.  iii.  3 — 5.     From  this  state  they  had 


IN    THE   EPISTLES   OF   PAUL,  ETC.  405 

deliverance  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  "  For  to  as  many  as  re- 
ceived him,  power  is  given  to  be  the  sons  of  God."  John  i.  12. 
"  He  that  believeth  on  him,  is  not  condemned,"  that  is,  he  is 
saved,  in  the  sense  of  the  Apostle  in  this  place.  John  iii.  15. 
"  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  everlasting  life,  (is 
saved)  but  he  that  believeth  not,  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on 
him,"  verse  36.  And  in  this  sense,  saved,  and  salvation,  are 
frequently  used  in  the  Scripture.  Besides  he  gives  us  so  full  a 
description  of  the  salvation,  which  he  intends,  from  verse  13, 
to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  it.  It  is 
our  being  "  made  nigh"  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  verse  13;  our 
"peace  with  God"  by  his  death,  verse  14,  15;  our  "reconcilia- 
tion" by  the  blood  of  the  cross,  verse  16;  our  "access  unto 
God,"  and  all  spiritual  privileges  thereon  depending,  verse 
18—20,  &c. 

Wherefore  the  inquiry  of  the  Apostle  and  his  determination 
thereon,  is  concerning  the  causes  of  our  justification  before 
God.  This  he  declares  and  fixes  both  positively  and  negatively. 
Positively  (1)  In  the  supreme  moving  cause  on  the  part  of  God. 
This  is  that  free  sovereign  grace  and  love  of  his,  which  he  illus- 
trates by  its  adjuncts  and  properties  before  mentioned.  (2)  In 
the  meritorious  procuring  cause  of  it,  which  is  Jesus  Christ  in 
the  work  of  his  mediation,  as  the  ordinance  of  God  for  the  ren- 
dering this  grace  effectual  to  his  glory,  verses  7, 13, 16.  (3)  In  the 
only  means  or  instrumental  cause  on  our  part  which  is  faith. 
"  By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith,"  verse  8.  And  lest  he 
should  seem  to  derogate  any  thing  from  the  grace  of  God,  in 
asserting  the  necessity  and  use  of  faith,  he  adds  that  epanortho- 
sis,  and  "  that  not  of  ourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God."  The  com- 
munication of  this  faith  to  us  is  no  less  of  grace  than  is  the  jus- 
tification which  we  obtain  thereby.  So  has  he  secured  the 
whole  work  to  the  grace  of  God  through  Christ,  wherein  we 
are  interested  by  faith  alone. 

But  not  content  herewith,  he  describes  this  work  negatively, 
or  adds  an  exclusion  of  what  might  be  pretended  to  have  a  con- 
cernment therein.  And  therein  three  things  are  stated  dis- 
tinctly. (1)  What  it  is  he  so  excludes.  (2)  The  reason  whereon 
he  does  so.  (3)  The  confirmation  of  that  reason,  wherein  he 
obviates  an  objection  that  might  arise  thereon. 

1.  That  which  he  excludes  is  works;  "  not  of  works,"  verse  9. 
And  what  works  he  intends,  at  least  principally,  he  himself  de- 
clares. Works,  say  some,  of  the  law,  the  law  of  Moses.  But 
what  concernment  had  these  Ephesians  therein,  that  the  Apos- 


406  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS     DECLARED 

tie  should  inform  them,  that  they  were  not  justified  by  those 
works?  They  were  never  under  that  law,  never  sought  for 
righteousness  by  it,  nor  had  any  respect  to  it,  but  only,  that  they 
were  delivered  from  it.  But  it  may  be  he  intends  only  works 
wrought  in  the  strength  of  our  own  natural  abilities,  without 
the  aids  of  grace,  and  before  believing.  But  what  were  the 
works  of  these  Ephesians  antecedent  to  believing,  he  before 
and  afterwards  declares.  For  "  being  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins, 
they  walked  according  to  the  course  of  this  world  in  the  lusts 
of  the  flesh,  fulfilling  the  desires  of  the  flesh,  and  of  the  mind," 
verse  1 — 3.  It  is  certain  enough  that  these  works  have  no  in- 
fluence upon  our  justification;  and  no  less  certain,  that  the 
Apostle  had  no  reason  to  exclude  them  from  it,  as  though  any 
could  pretend  to  be  advantaged  by  them,  in  that  which  con- 
sists in  a  deliverance  from  them.  Wherefore  the  works  here 
excluded  by  the  Apostle,  are  those  works  which  the  Ephesians 
now  performed,  when  they  were  believers,  "  quickened  with 
Christ;"  even  the  works  "which  God  hath  fore-ordained,  that 
we  should  walk  in  them,"  as  he  expressly  declared,  verse  10. 
And  these  works  he  excludes  not  only  in  opposition  to  grace, 
but  in  opposition  to  faith  also.  "  Through  faith,  not  of  works." 
Wherefore  he  not  only  rejects  their  merit,  as  inconsistent  with 
grace,  but  their  co-interest  on  our  part  with,  or  subsequent  in- 
terest to  faith,  in  the  work  of  justification  before  God. 

If  we  are  saved  by  grace  through  faith  in  Christ  exclusively 
of  all  works  of  obedience  whatever,  then  cannot  such  works 
be  the  whole  or  any  part  of  our  righteousness  to  the  justifica- 
tion of  life.  Wherefore  another  righteousness  we  must  have 
or  perish  for  ever.  Many  things  I  know  are  here  off"ered,  and 
many  distinctions  coined  to  retain  some  interest  of  works  in  our 
justification  before  God;  but  whether  it  be  the  safest  way  to 
trust  to  them,  or  to  this  plain,  express,  divine  testimony,  will 
not  be  hard  for  any  to  determine,  when  they  make  the  case 
their  own. 

2.  The  Apostle  adds  a  reason  of  this  exclusion  of  works; 
"not  of  works  lest  any  one  should  boast."  God  has  ordained 
the  order  and  method  of  our  justification  by  Christ  in  the  way 
expressed,  that  no  man  might  have  ground,  reason,  or  occasion 
to  glory  or  boast  in  or  of  himself.  So  it  is  expressed  1  Cor.  i. 
21,  30, 31.  Rom.  iii.  32.  To  exclude  all  glorying  or  boasting  on 
our  part,  is  the  design  of  God.  And  this  consists  in  an  ascrip- 
tion of  something  to  ourselves,  that  is  not  in  others,  in  order  to 
justification.     And  it  is  works  alone  that  can  administer  any 


IN   THE   EPISTLES    OP    PAUL,    ETC.  407 

occasion  of  this  boasting;  "  For  if  Abraham  were  justified  by 
works,  he  had  whereof  to  glory,"  Rom.  iv.  2.  And  it  is  ex- 
cluded alone  "  by  the  law  of  faith,"  Rom.  iii.  27.  For  the  na- 
ture and  use  of  faith,  is  to  find  righteousness  in  another.  And 
this  boasting,  all  works  are  apt  to  beget  in  the  minds  of  men, 
if  applied  to  justification.  And  where  there  is  any  boasting  of 
this  nature,  the  design  of  God  towards  us  in  this  work  of  his 
grace,  is  frustrated  as  far  as  lies  in  us. 

That  which  I  principally  insist  on  from  hence,  is,  that  there 
are  no  boundaries  fixed  in  Scripture  to  the  interest  of  works 
in  justification,  so  as  no  boasting  should  be  included  in  them. 
The  Papists  make  them  meritorious  of  it,  at  least  of  our  second 
justification  as  they  call  it.  This,  say  some,  ought  not  to  be 
admitted;  for  it  includes  boasting.  Merit  and  boasting  are 
inseparable.  Wherefore,  say  others,  they  are  only  causa  sine 
qua  non,  they  are  the  condition  of  it;  or  they  are  our  evan- 
gelical righteousness  before  God  whereon  we  are  evangelically 
justified,  or  they  are  a  subordinate  righteousness,  whereon  we 
obtain  an  interest  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ;  or  are  com- 
prised in  the  condition  of  the  new  covenant  whereby  we  are 
justified;  or  are  included  in  faith,  being  the  form  of  it,  or  of 
the  essence  of  it,  one  way  or  other:  for  herein  men  express 
themselves  in  great  variety.  But  so  long  as  our  works  are 
hereby  asserted  in  order  to  our  justification,  how  shall  a  man 
be  certain  that  they. do  not  include  boasting;  or,  that  they  ex- 
press the  true  sense  of  these  words,  "  not  of  works  lest  any 
man  should  boast?"  There  is  some  kind  of  ascription  to  our- 
selves in  this  matter,  which  is  boasting.  If  any  shall  say,  that 
they  know  well  enough  what  they  do,  and  know  that  they 
do  not  boast  in  what  they  ascribe  to  works,  I  must  say  that 
in  general  I  cannot  admit  it.  For  the  Papists  affirm  of  them- 
selves, that  they  are  most  remote  from  boasting;  yet  I  am  very 
well  satisfied  that  boasting  and  merit  are  inseparable.  The 
question  is  not  what  men  think  they  do,  but  what  judgment 
the  Scripture  passes  on  what  they  do.  And  if  it  be  said,  that 
what  is  in  us,  is  also  of  the  grace  and  gift  of  God,  and  is  so  ac- 
knowledged, which  excludes  all  boasting  in  ourselves,  I  say  it 
was  so  by  the  Pharisee,  and  yet  was  he  a  horrible  boaster. 
Let  them  therefore  be  supposed  to  be  wrought  in  us  in  what 
way  men  please,  if  they  be  also  wrought  by  us  and  so  be  "the 
works  of  righteousness,  which  we  have  done,"  I  fear  their 
introduction  into  our  justification,  includes  boasting  in  it,  be- 
cause of  this  assertion  of  the  Apostle,  "  not  of  works  lest  any 


408  THE    NATURE    OF   JUSTIFICATION   AS    DECLARED 

man  should  boast."  Wherefore  because  this  is  a  dangerous 
point,  unless  men  can  give  us  the  direct,  plain,  indisputable 
bounds  of  the  introduction  of  our  works  into  our  justification, 
which  cannot  include  boasting  in  it,  it  is  the  safest  course  utterly 
to  exclude  them,  wherein  I  see  no  danger  of  any  mistake  in 
these  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  "  not  of  works,  lest  any  man 
should  boast."  For  if  we  should  be  unadvisedly  seduced  into 
this  boasting,  we  should  lose  all  the  benefit  which  we  might 
otherwise  expect  by  the  grace  of  God. 

3.  The  Apostle  gives  another  reason  why  it  cannot  be  of 
works,  and  withal  obviates  an  objection,  which  might  arise 
from  what  he  had  declared,  verse  10.  "  For  we  are  his  work- 
manship, created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which  God 
hath  before  ordained,  that  we  should  walk  in  them."  And  the 
force  of  his  reason,  which  the  causal  conjunction  intimates  the 
introduction  of,  consists  in  this:  that  all  good  works,  those  con- 
cerning which  he  treats,  evangelical  works,  are  the  effects  of 
the  grace  of  God  in  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  so  are 
truly  justified  antecedently  in  order  of  nature  to  them.  But 
that  which  he  principally  designed  in  these  words,  was  that 
which  he  is  still  mindful  of,  wherever  he  treats  of  this  doctrine, 
nam-ely  to  obviate  an  objection  that  he  foresaw  some  would 
make  agauist  it,  and  that  is  this:  "  If  good  works  be  thus  ex- 
cluded from  our  justification  before  God,  then  of  what  use  are 
they?  we  may  live  as  we  list,  utterly  neglect  them,  and  yet  be 
justified."  And  this  very  objection  do  some  men  continue  to 
manage  with  great  veheraency  against  the  same  doctrine.  We 
meet  with  nothing  in  this  cause  more  frequently,  than  that  if 
our  justification  before  God  be  not  of  works  some  way  or  other, 
if  they  be  not  antecedently  required  thereto,  if  they  are  not  a 
previous  condition  of  it,  then  there  is  no  need  of  them:  men 
may  safely  live  in  an  utter  neglect  of  all  obedience  to  God. 
And  on  this  theme  men  are  very  apt  to  enlarge  themselves, 
who  otherwise  give  no  great  evidences  of  their  own  evan- 
gelical obedience.  To  me  it  is  marvellous,  that  they  heed  not 
to  what  party  they  make  an  accession  in  the  management  of 
this  objection;  namely  to  them,  who  were  the  adversaries  of 
the  doctrine  of  grace,  taught  by  the  Apostle.  It  must  be  else- 
where considered.  For  the  present  I  shall  say  no  more,  but 
that  if  the  answer  here  given  by  the  Apostle  be  not  satis- 
factory to  them,  if  the  grounds  and  reasons  of  the  necessity 
and  use  of  good  works  here  declared,  be  not  judged  by  them 
suffici'ent  to  establish  them  in  their  proper  place  and  order,  I 


IN   THE   EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,   ETC.  409 

shall  not  esteem  myself  obliged  to  attempt  their  further  satis- 
faction. 

Phil.  iii.  8,  9. — "  Yea  doubtless,  and  I  account  all  things  but 
loss  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  my 
Lord,  for  whom  I  have  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things,  and  do 
count  them  but  dung  that  I  may  win  Christ,  and  be  found  in 
him,  not  having  mine  own  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law, 
but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteous- 
ness which  is  of  God  by  faith." 

This  is  the  last  testimony  which  I  shall  insist  upon,  and 
although  it  be  of  great  importance,  I  shall  be  the  more  brief  in 
the  consideration  of  it,  because  it  has  been  lately  pleaded  and 
vindicated  by  another,  whereto  I  do  not  expect  any  tolerable 
reply.  For  what  has  since  been  attempted  by  one,  is  of  no 
weight.  He  is  in  this  matter  ovts  TptT-o;  ovts  ts'ta^toi.  And 
the  things  that  I  would  observe  from  and  concerning  this  testi- 
mony, may  be  reduced  to  the  ensuing  heads. 

1.  That  which  the  Apostle  designs  from  the  beginning  of  this 
chapter,  and  in  these  verses,  is  in  an  especial  manner  to  declare 
what  it  is  on  account  whereof  we  are  accepted  with  God,  and 
have  thereon  cause  to  rejoice.  This  he  fixes  in  general  in  an 
interest  in  and  participation  of  Christ  by  faith,  in  opposition  to 
all  legal  privileges  and  advantages,  wherein  the  Jews  whom 
he  reflected  upon  boasted  and  rejoiced.  "  We  rejoice  in  Christ 
Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in  the  flesh,"  verse  3. 

2.  He  supposes  that  in  order  to  that  acceptance  before  God 
wherein  we  are  to  rejoice,  there  is  a  righteousness  necessary; 
and  whatever  it  be,  that  it  is  the  sole  ground  of  that  accept- 
ance.    And  to  give  evidence  hereto, 

3.  He  declares  that  there  is  a  twofold  righteousness  that  may 
be  pleaded  and  trusted  to  for  this  purpose.  (l)"Our  own 
righteousness  which  is  of  the  law."  (2)  That  which  is  "  through 
the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith." 
These  he  asserts  to  be  opposite  and  inconsistent  as  to  the  end 
of  our  justification  and  acceptance  with  God;  "not  having  mine 
own  righteousness,  but  that  which  is,"  &.c.  And  an  interme- 
diate righteousness  between  these  he  acknowledges  not. 

4.  Placing  the  instance  in  himself,  he  declares  emphatically 
(so  that  there  is  scarce  a  greater  TtaSoj,  or  vehemency  of  speech, 
in  all  his  writings,)  which  of  those  it  was  that  he  adhered  to, 
and  placed  his  confidence  in.  And  in  the  handling  of  this  sub- 
ject,  there  were  some  things  which  engaged  his  holy  mind  in 
an  earnestness  of  expression,  in  the  exaltation  of  one  of  these, 

35 


410  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

namely,  of  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith,  and  the 
depression  of  the  other,  or  his  own  righteousness.     As, 

1.  This  was  the  turning  point,  whereon  he  and  others  had 
forsaken  their  Judaism  and  betaken  themselves  to  the  gospel. 
This  therefore  was  to  be  secured  as  the  main  instance,  wherein 
the  greatest  controversy  that  ever  was  in  the  world  was  debated. 
So  he  expresses  it.  Gal.  ii.  15,  16,  "  We  who  are  Jews  by  na- 
ture and  not  sinners  of  the  Gentiles,  knowing  that  a  man  is  not 
justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by  the  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ,  even  we  have  believed  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might 
be  justified  by  the  faith  of  Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the 
law."  (2)  Hereon  there  was  great  opposition  made  to  this 
doctrine  by  the  Jews  in  all  places,  and  in  many  of  them  the 
minds  of  multitudes  were  turned  off  from  the  truth  (which  the 
most  are  generally  prone  to  in  this  case)  and  perverted  from 
the  simplicity  of  the  gospel.  This  greatly  affected  his  holy  soul, 
and  he  takes  notice  of  it  in  most  of  his  Epistles.  (3)  The  weight 
of  the  doctrine  itself,  with  that  unwillingness  which  is  in  the 
minds  of  men  by  nature  to  embrace  it,  as  that  which  lays  the 
axe  to  the  root  of  all  spiritual  pride,  elation  of  mind,  and  self- 
pleasing  whatever,  whence  innumerable  subterfuges  have  been, 
and  are  sought  out  to  avoid  the  efficacy  of  it,  and  to  keep  the 
souls  of  men  from  that  universal  resignation  of  themselves  to 
sovereign  grace  in  Christ,  which  they  have  naturally  such  an 
aversion  to,  did  also  affect  him.  (4)  He  had  himself  been  a 
great  sinner  in  the  days  of  his  ignorance,  by  a  peculiar  oppo- 
sition to  Christ  and  the  gospel;  this  he  was  deeply  sensible  of; 
and  therewith  of  the  excellency  of  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  whereby  he  was  delivered.  And  men 
must  have  some  experience  of  what  he  felt  in  himself  as  to  sin 
and  grace,  before  they  can  well  understand  his  expressions 
about  them. 

5.  Hence  it  was,  that  in  many  other  places  of  his  writings, 
but  in  this  especially,  he  treats  of  these  things  with  a  greater 
earnestness  and  vehemency  of  spirit  than  ordinary.  Thus  (I) 
On  the  part  of  Christ  whom  he  would  exalt  he  mentions  not 
only  the  knowledge  of  him,  but  to  vtn^exov  trii  yvt^cBUi,  "the  ex- 
cellency of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord,"  with  an 
emphasis  in  every  word;  and  those  other  redoubled  expres- 
sions, "  all  loss  for  him,  that  I  may  win  him,  that  I  may  be 
found  in  him,  that  I  may  know  him,"  all  argue  the  working 
of  his  affections  under  the  conduct  of  faith  and  truth  to  an  ac- 
quiescence in  Christ  alone,  as  all  and  in  all.    Somewhat  of  this 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL,    ETC.  411 

frame  of  mind  is  necessary  to  them  that  would  believe  his  doc- 
trine. Those  who  are  utter  strangers  to  the  one,  will  never 
receive  the  otlier.  (2)  In  his  expression  of  all  other  things  that 
are  our  own,  that  are  not  Christ,  whether  privileges  or  duties, 
however  good,  useful,  excellent,  they  may  be  in  themselves, 
yet  in  comparison  of  Christ  and  his  righteousness,  and  with 
respect  to  the  end  of  our  standing  before  God,  and  acceptance 
with  him,  with  the  same  vehemency  of  spirit  he  casts  contempt 
upon  them,calUng  them  axvj3a%a, "  dogs'  meat"  to  be  left  for  them 
whom  he  calls  "dogs,"  that  is,  "evil  workers,  the  concision;" 
or  the  wicked  Jews  who  adhered  pertinaciously  to  the  right- 
eousness of  the  law,  verse  2.  This  account  of  the  earnestness 
of  the  Apostle  in  this  argument,  and  the  warmth  of  his  ex- 
pressions, I  thought  meet  to  give  as  that  which  gives  light  to 
the  whole  of  his  design. 

6.  The  question  being  thus  stated,  the  inquiry  is  what  any 
person  who  desires  acceptance  with  God,  or  a  righteousness 
whereon  he  may  be  justified  before  him,  ought  to  betake  him- 
self to.  One  of  the  ways  proposed  he  must  close  with.  Either 
he  must  comply  with  the  Apostle  in  his  resolution  to  reject  all 
his  own  righteousness,  and  to  betake  himself  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,  which  is  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus  alone,  or  find  out 
for  himself,  or  get  some  to  find  out  for  him,  some  exceptions  to 
the  Apostle's  conclusion,  or  some  distinctions  that  may  prepare 
a  reserve  for  his  own  works,  one  way  or  other  in  his  justifica- 
tion before  God.  Here  every  one  must  choose  for  himself.  In 
the  mean  time,  we  thus  argue.  If  "  our  own  righteousness," 
and  the  "righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith,"  or  that 
which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ  Jesus,  (namely  the  right- 
eousness which  God  imputes  to  us,  Rom.  iv.  6;  or  the  abundance 
of  grace  and  the  gift  of  righteousness  thereby,  which  we  receive. 
Rom.  V.  17,)  are  opposite  and  inconsistent  in  the  work  of  justi- 
fication before  God,  then  are  we  justified  by  faith  alone  through 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  us.  The  con- 
sequence is  plain  from  the  removal  of  all  other  ways,  causes, 
means,  and  conditions  of  it,  as  inconsistent  with  it.  But  the 
antecedent  is  expressly  the  Apostle's;  "  not  my  own,  but  that 
of  God."     Again, 

That  whereby,  and  wherewith  we  are  "found  in  Christ,"  is 
that  whereby  alone  we  are  justified  before  God;  for  to  be 
"found  in  Christ,"  expresses  the  state  of  the  person  that  is  to 
be  justified  before  God:  whereto  is  opposed  to  be  "found  in 
ourselves."     And  according  to  these  different  states,  the  judg- 


412  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

ment  of  God  passes  concerning  us.  And  as  for  those  who  are 
found  in  themselves,  we  know  what  will  be  their  portion.  But 
in  Christ  we  are  found,  by  faith  alone. 

All  manner  of  evasions  are  made  use  of  by  some,  to  escape 
the  force  of  this  testimony.  It  is  said  in  general, '  that  no  sober 
minded  man  can  imagine  the  Apostle  did  not  desire  to  be  found 
in  gospel  righteousness,  or  that  by  his  own  righteousness  he 
meant  that.  For  it  is  that  alone  can  entitle  us  to  the  benefits 
of  Christ's  righteousness.'  Nollem  dictum.  (1)  The  censure 
is  too  severe  to  be  cast  on  all  Protestant  writers  without  excep- 
tion, who  have  expounded  this  place  of  the  Apostle;  and  all 
others,  except  some  few  of  late,  influenced  by  the  heat  of  the 
controversy  wherein  they  are  engaged.  (2)  If  the  gospel  right- 
eousness intended  be  his  own  personal  righteousness  and  obe- 
dience, there  is  some  want  of  consideration  in  affirming,  that 
he  did  not  desire  to  be  found  in  it.  That  wherein  we  are 
found,  thereon  are  we  to  be  judged;  to  be  found  in  our  own 
evangelical  righteousness  before  God,  is  to  enter  into  judgment 
with  God  thereon,  which  those  who  understand  any  thing 
aright  of  God  and  themselves,  will  not  be  free  to.  And  to 
make  this  to  be  the  meaning  of  his  words,  'I  desire  not  to  be 
found  in  my  own  righteousness  which  is  after  the  law,  but  I 
desire  to  be  found  in  mine  own  righteousness  which  is  accord- 
ing to  the  gospel ;'  whereas,  since  they  are  his  own  inherent 
righteousness,  they  are  both  the  same,  does  not  seem  a  proper 
interpretation  of  his  words,  and  it  shall  be  immediately  dis- 
proved. (3)  That  our  personal  gospel  righteousness,  entitles 
us  to  the  benefits  of  Christ's  righteousness,  that  is,  as  to  our 
justification  before  God,  is  gratis  dictum,  not  one  testimony  of 
Scripture  can  be  produced  that  gives  the  least  countenance  to 
such  an  assertion.  That  it  is  contrary  to  many  express  testi- 
monies, and  inconsistent  with  the  freeness  of  the  grace  of  God 
in  our  justification,  as  proposed  in  the  Scripture,  has  been 
proved  before.  Nor  do  any  of  the  places  which  assert  the  ne- 
cessity of  obedience  and  good  works  in  believers,  that  is,  justi- 
fied persons,  to  salvation,  any  way  belong  to  the  proof  of  this 
assertion;  or  in  the  least  express,  or  intimate  any  such  thing. 
And  in  particular,  the  assertion  of  it  is  expressly  contradictory 
to  that  of  the  Apostle,  Tit.  iii.  4,  5.  But  I  forbear,  and  pro- 
ceed to  the  consideration  of  the  special  answers,  that  are  given 
to  this  testimony,  especially  those  of  Bellarmine,  whereto  I 
have,  as  yet,  seen  nothing  added  with  any  pretence  of  reason 
in  it. 


IN    THE    EPISTLES     OF    PAUL,    ETC.  413 

1.  Some  say,  '  that  by  his  own  righteousness  which  the  Apos- 
tle rejects,  he  intends  only  his  righteousness  ix  vofiov,  or  "  by  the 
works  of  the  law."  But  this  was  only  an  outward  externa! 
righteousness,  consisting  in  the  observation  of  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies, without  respect  to  the  inward  frame  or  obedience  of  the 
heart.'  But  this  is  an  impious  imagination.  The  righteousness 
which  is  by  the  law,  is  the  righteousness  which  the  law  re- 
quires, and  those  works  of  it,  which  if  a  man  do,  he  shall  live 
in  them;  for  "  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified,*'  Rom.  ii. 
16.  Neither  did  God  ever  give  any  law  of  obedience  to  man, 
but  what  obliged  him  to  love  the  Lord  his  God  with  all  his 
heart,  and  all  his  soul.  And  it  is  so  far  from  being  true,  that 
God  by  the  law  required  an  external  righteousness  only,  that 
he  frequently  condemns  it  as  an  abomination  to  him,  where  it 
is  alone. 

2.  Others  say,  '  that  it  is  the  righteousness  whatever  it  be, 
which  he  had  during  his  pharisaism.  And  although  he  should 
be  allowed  in  that  state,  to  have  lived  in  all  good  conscience, 
instantly  to  have  served  God  day  and  night,  and  to  have  had 
respect  as  well  to  the  internal  as  the  external  works  of  the  law; 
yet  all  these  works  being  before  faith,  before  conversion  to  God, 
may  be,  and  are  to  be  rejected  as  to  any  concurrence  to  our  jus- 
tification. But  works  wrought  in  faith,  by  the  aid  of  grace, 
evangelical  works,  are  of  another  consideration,  and  together 
with  faith,  are  the  condition  of  justification.' 

Ans.  1.  That  in  the  matter  of  our  justification  the  Apostle 
opposes  evangelical  works,  not  only  to  the  grace  of  God,  but 
also  to  the  faith  of  believers,  was  proved  in  the  consideration 
of  the  foregoing  testimony. 

2.  He  makes  no  such  distinction,  as  that  pretended,  namely, 
that  works  are  of  two  sorts;  whereof  one  is  to  be  excluded 
from  any  interest  in  our  justification,  but  not  the  other;  neither 
does  he  any  where  else,  treating  of  the  same  subject,  intimate 
any  such  distinction;  but  on  the  contrary,  declares  that  use  of 
all  works  of  obedience  in  them  that  believe,  which  is  exclusive 
of  the  supposition  of  any  such  distinction,  but  he  directly  ex- 
presses, in  this  rejection,  his  own  righteousness,  that  is,  his 
personal  inherent  righteousness  whatever  it  be,  and  however 
it  be  wrought. 

3.  He  makes  a  plain  distinction  of  his  own  twofold  estate, 
namely,  that  of  his  Judaism  which  he  was  m  before  his  con- 
version, and  that  which  he  had  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  In 
the  first  state,  he  considers  the  privileges  of  it,  and  declares 

35* 


414  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

what  judgment  he  made  concerning  them  upon  the  revelation 
of  Jesus  Christ  to  him;  "  I  counted,"  Pliil.  iii.  7,  referring  to  the 
time  past,  namely,  at  his  first  conversion.  I  considered  them 
with  all  the  advantages,  gain,  and  reputation,  which  I  had  by 
them,  but  rejected  them  all  for  Christ,  because  the  esteem  of 
them  and  continuance  in  them  as  privileges,  were  inconsistent 
with  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  Secondly,  he  proceeds  to  give  an 
account  of  himself  and  his  thoughts,  as  to  his  present  con- 
dition. For  it  might  be  supposed,  that  although  he  had  part- 
ed with  all  his  legal  privileges  for  Christ;  yet  now  being  united 
to  him  by  faith,  he  had  something  of  his  own,  wherein  he 
might  rejoice,  and  on  the  account  whereof  he  might  be  ac- 
cepted with  God,  (the  thing  inquired  after)  or  else  he  had  part- 
ed with  all  for  nothing.  Wherefore  he  who  had  no  design  to 
make  any  reserves  of  what  he  might  glory  in,  plainly  declares 
what  his  judgment  is  concerning  all  his  present  righteousness, 
and  the  ways  of  obedience  which  he  was  now  engaged  in,  with 
respect  to  the  ends  inquired  after,  ver.  S.  A7.>.a  ^sr'ori'yf  xai  r^yov- 
jua:.  The  bringing  over  of  what  was  affirmed  before  concern- 
ing his  Judaical  privileges  into  this  verse,  is  an  efiect  of  a  very 
superficial  consideration  of  the  context.  For  (1)  there  is  a  plain 
dvljjffts  in  these  words  A%%a  fiivowyi  xao.  He  could  not  more 
plainly  express  the  heightening  of  what  he  had  affirmed  by  a 
progress  to  other  things,  or  the  consideration  of  himself  in  an- 
other state.  But  moreover,  beyond  what  I  have  already  as- 
serted; (2)  the  change  of  the  time  expressed  by  yj-yrj^iai  which 
respects  what  was  past,  into  -^yov^uat,  wherein  he  has  respect 
only  to  what  was  present,  not  what  he  had  before  rejected  and 
forsaken,  makes  evident  his  progress  to  the  consideration  of 
things  of  another  nature.  Wherefore  to  the  rejection  of  all  his 
former  Judaical  privileges,  he  adds  his  judgment  concerning 
his  own  present  personal  righteousness.  But  whereas  it  might 
be  objected,  that  rejecting  all  both  before  and  after  conversion, 
he  had  nothing  left  to  "rejoice"  in,  to  "glory"  in,  to  give  him 
acceptance  with  God;  he  assures  us  of  the  contrary,  namely, 
that  he  found  all  these  things  in  Christ,  and  "  the  righteousness 
of  God  which  is  by  faith."  He  is  therefore  in  these  words, 
"  Not  having  mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  by  the  law," 
so  far  from  intending  only  the  righteousness  which  he  had  be- 
fore his  conversion,  that  he  intends  it  not  at  all. 

The  words  of  Davenant  on  this  passage  of  the  Apostle,  being 
in  my  judgment  not  only  sober,  but  weighty  also,  I  shall  tran- 
scribe them.     "  Here  the  Apostle  teaches  what  is  that  right- 


IN    THE    EPISTLES   OF    PAUL,    ETC.  415 

eousness,  on  which  we  must  rely  before  God,  to  wit,  that 
which  is  apprehended  by  faith;  but  this  is  an  imputed  right- 
eousness. He  also  shows  why  it  rightfully  becomes  ours;  to 
wit,  because  we  are  Christ's  and  are  found  in  Christ.  There- 
fore, because  we  are  ingrafted  into  his  body,  and  are  united 
with  him  in  one  person,  his  righteousness  is  accounted  ours."* 
For  whereas  some  begin  to  interpret  our  being  "in  Christ," 
and  being  "found  in  him,"  so  as  to  intend  no  more  but  our 
profession  of  the  faith  of  the  gospel — the  faith  of  the  Catholic 
church  in  all  ages  concerning  the  mystical  union  of  Christ  and 
believers,  is  not  to  be  blown  away  with  a  few  empty  words 
and  unproved  assertions. 

The  answer  therefore  is  full  and  clear  to  the  general  excep- 
tion, namely,  that  the  Apostle  rejects  our  legal,  but  not  our 
evangelical  righteousness.  For  (1)  the  Apostle  rejects,  dis- 
claims, disowns  nothing  at  all,  not  the  one  nor  the  other  abso- 
lutely, but  in  comparison  of  Christ,  and  with  respect  to  the 
especial  end  of  justification  before  God,  or  a  righteousness  in 
his  sight.  (2)  In  that  sense  he  rejects  all  our  own  righteous- 
ness; but  our  evangelical  righteousness,  in  the  sense  pleaded 
for,  is  our  own,  inherent  in  us,  performed  by  us.  (3)  Our  legal 
righteousness,  and  our  evangelical,  so  far  as  an  inherent  right- 
eousness is  intended,  are  the  same,  and  the  different  ends  and 
use  of  the  same  righteousness,  is  alone  intended  in  that  dis- 
tinction, so  far  as  it  has  sense  in  it.  That  which  in  respect  of 
motives  to  it,  the  ends  of  it,  with  the  especial  causes  of  its  ac- 
ceptance with  God,  is  evangelical,  in  respect  of  its  original 
prescription,  rule,  and  measure,  is  legal.  When  any  can 
instance  any  act  or  duty,  any  habit  or  effect  of  it,  which 
are  not  required  by  that  law  which  enjoins  us  "to  love  the 
Lord  our  God,  with  all  our  heart,  soul,  and  mind,  and  our 
neighbour  as  ourselves;"  they  shall  be  attended  to.  (4)  The 
Apostle  in  this  case  rejects  all  the  works  of  righteousness 
which  we  have  done.  Tit.  iii.  5.  But  our  evangelical  right- 
eousness consists  in  the  works  of  righteousness  which  we  do. 
(5)  He  disclaims  all  that  is  our  own.  And  if  the  evangelical 
righteousness  intended  be  our  own,  he  sets  up  another  in 
opposition  to  it;  and  which  therefore  is  not  our  own,  but  as  it 

*  Hie  docet  Apostolus  quasnam  ilia  justitia  sit  qua  nitendum  eoram  Deo,  nimi- 
rum  quae  per  fidem  apprehenditur,  at  hcBc  imputata  est.  Causam  etiain  ostendit  cur 
jure  nostra  fiat,  nimiruin  quia  nos  Christi  sumus  et  in  Christo  comperimur;  quia 
igitur  insiti  sumus  in  corpus  ejus  et  coalescimus  cum  ilio  in  unam  personam,  ideo 
ejus  justitia  nostra  reputatur.  De  Justif.  Habit,  cap.  38. 


416  THE    NATURE    OF    JUSTIFICATION    AS    DECLARED 

is  imputed  to  us.  And  I  shall  yet  add  some  other  reasons 
which  render  this  pretence  useless,  or  show  the  falseness 
of  it. 

1.  Where  the  Apostle  does  not  distinguish  or  limit  what  he 
speaks  of,  what  ground  have  we  to  distinguish  or  limit  his  as- 
sertions? "Not  by  works,"  saith  he,  sometimes  absolutely, 
sometimes  the  "  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done;" 
that  is,  not  by  some  sort  of  works,  say  those  who  plead  the 
contrary;  but  by  what  warrant?  (2)  The  works  which  they 
pretend  to  be  excluded,  as  wherein  our  own  righteousness  that 
is  rejected  consists,  are  works  wrought  without  faith,  without 
the  aid  of  grace:  but  these  are  not  ^ood  works,  nor  can  any 
be  denominated  righteous  from  them,  nor  is  it  any  righteous- 
ness that  consists  in  them  alone.  For  "  without  faith  it  is  im- 
possible to  please  God:"  and  to  what  purpose  should  the 
Apostle  exclude  evil  works  and  hypocritical,  from  our  justifi- 
cation? Who  ever  imagined,  that  any  could  be  justified  with 
respect  to  them?  There  might  have  been  some  pretence  for 
this  gloss,  had  the  Apostle  said  his  own  works;  but  whereas 
he  rejects  his  own  righteousness,  to  restrain  it  to  such  works 
as  are  not  righteous,  as  will  denominate  none  righteous,  as  are 
no  righteousness  at  all,  is  most  absurd.  (3)  Works  wrought 
in  faith,  if  applied  to  our  justification,  give  occasion  to,  or  in- 
clude "  boasting,"  more  than  any  others,  as  being  better  and 
more  praiseworthy  than  they,  (4)  The  Apostle  elsewhere 
excludes  from  justification  the  works  that  Abraham  had  done 
when  he  had  been  a  believer  many  years;  and  the  works  of 
David  when  he  described  the  blessedness  of  a  man  by  the  for- 
giveness of  sins.  (5)  The  state  of  the  question  which  he  han- 
dles in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  was  expressly  about  the 
works  of  them  that  believed.  For  he  does  not  dispute  against 
the  Jews,  who  would  not  be  pressed  in  the  least  with  his  ar- 
guments, namely,  that  if  the  inheritance  were  by  the  law,  then 
the  promise  was  of  none  effect;  and  if  righteousness  were  by 
the  law,  then  did  Christ  die  in  vain :  for  these  things  they 
would  readily  grant.  But  he  speaks  to  them  that  were  be- 
lievers, with  respect  to  those  works  which  they  would  have 
joined  with  Christ  and  the  gospel,  in  order  to  justification.  (6) 
If  this  were  the  mind  of  the  Apostle,  that  he  would  exclude 
one  sort  of  works,  and  assert  the  necessity  of  another  to  the 
same  end,  why  did  he  not  once  say  so,  especially  considering 
how  necessary  it  was  that  so.**he  should  do,  to  answer  those 
objections  against  his  doctrine  which  he  himself  takes  notice 


IN    THE    EPISTLES    OF   PAUL,    ETC.  417 

of,  and  returns  answer  to  on  other  grounds,  without  the  least 
intimation  of  any  such  distinction  ? 

Bellarmine  considers  this  testimony  in  three  places,  Lib.  1. 
cap.  IS.  Lib.  1.  cap.  19.  Lib.  5.  cap.  5.  De  Justificat.  And  he 
returns  three  answers  to  it,  which  contain  the  substance  of  all 
that  is  pleaded  by  others  to  the  same  purpose.  (1)  He  saith, 
"  That  the  righteousness  which  is  by  the  law,  and  which  is  op- 
posed to  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith,  is  not  the  right- 
eousness written  in  the  law,  or  which  the  law  requires,  but  a 
righteousness  wrought  without  the  aid  of  grace,  by  the  know- 
ledge of  the  law  alone.  (2)  That  the  righteousness  which  is  by 
the  faith  of  Christ,  are  opera  nostra  just  a  facta  ex  Jide,  our 
own  righteous  works  wrought  in  faith,  which  others  call  our 
evangelical  works.  (3)  That  it  is  blasphemous  to  call  the  du- 
ties of  inherent  righteousness  <^r^^i,a.v  xai,  cfxvSaxa'Moss  and  dung." 
But  he  labours  in  the  tire  with  all  his  sophistry.  For  as  to  the 
first,  (1)  That  by  the  righteousness  which  is  by  the  law,  the 
righteousness  which  the  law  requires,  is  not  intended,  is  a  bold 
assertion,  and  expressly  contradictory  to  the  Apostle,  Rom.  ix. 
31 ;  X.  5.  In  both  places  he  declares  the  righteousness  of  the  law 
to  be  the  righteousness  that  the  law  requires.  (2)  The  works 
which  he  excludes,  he  calls  the  "  works  of  righteousness  that  we 
have  done,"  Tit.  iii.  5,  which  are  the  works  that  the  law  requires. 
To  the  second,  I  say,  ( 1 )  that  the  substance  of  it  is,  that  the  Apos- 
tle should  profess  "  I  desire  to  be  found  in  Christ,  not  having  my 
own  righteousness,  but  having  my  own  righteousness;"  for 
evangelical  inherent  righteousness  was  properly  his  own.  And  I 
am  sorry  that  some  should  apprehend  that  the  Apostle  in  these 
words  desired  to  be  found  in  his  own  righteousness  in  the  pre- 
sence of  God,  in  order  to  his  justification.  For  nothing  can  be 
more  contrary,  not  only  to  the  perpetual  tenor  and  design  of  all 
his  discourses,  on  this  subject,  but  also  to  the  testimony  of  all 
other  holy  men  in  the  Scripture,  to  the  same  purpose,as  we  have 
proved  before.  And  I  suppose  there  are  very  {q\v  true  believ- 
ers at  present,  whom  they  will  find  to  comply  and  join  with 
them  in  this  desire  of  being  found  in  their  own  personal  evan- 
gelical righteousness,  or  the  works  of  righteousness  which  they 
have  done,  in  their  trial  before  God,  as  to  their  justification. 
We  should  do  well  to  read  our  own  hearts,  as  well  as  the  books 
of  others  in  this  matter.  (2)  The  righteousness  which  is  of  God 
by  faith,  is  not  our  own  obedience  or  righteousness,  but  that 
which  is  opposed  to  it;  that  which  God  imputes  to  us,  Rom. 
iv.   6;  that  which  we  receive  by  way  of  gift,  Rom.  v.  17. 


418  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST   JUSTIFICATION    BY    THE 

(3)  That  by  the  righteousness  which  is  by  the  faith  of  Christ 
Jesus  our  own  inherent  righteousness  is  not  intended,  is  evident 
from  hence,  that  the  Apostle  excludes  all  his  own  righteous- 
ness, as,  and  when  he  was  found  in  Christ,  that  is,  whatever  he 
had  done  as  a  believer.  And  if  there  be  not  an  opposition  in 
these  words,  between  a  righteousness  that  is  our  own,  and  that 
which  is  not  our  own,  I  know  not  in  what  words  it  can  be  ex- 
pressed. To  the  third  I  say,  (1)  the  Apostle  does  not,  nor  do 
we  say  that  he  does,  call  our  inherent  righteousness  "  dung," 
but  only  that  he  "  accounts"  it  so.  (2)  He  does  not  account  it 
so  absolutely,  which  he  is  most  remote  from,  but  only  in  com- 
parison with  Christ.  (3)  He  does  not  esteem  it  so  in  itself,  but 
only  as  to  his  trust  in  it,  with  respect  to  one  especial  end, 
namely,  our  justification  before  God.  (4)  The  prophet  Isaiah 
in  the  same  respect,  terms  all  our  righteousnesses  "  filthy  rags," 
Isa.  Ixiv.  6.  And  any  ij3  is  an  expression  of  as  much  contempt, 

as  axv6a%.a. 

5.  Some  say  all  works  are  excluded  as  meritorious  of  grace, 
life,  and  salvation,  but  not  as  the  condition  of  our  justification 
before  God.  But  (1)  whatever  the  Apostle  excludes,  he  does 
it  absolutely,  and  in  all  respects,  because  he  sets  up  some- 
thing else  in  opposition  to  it.  (2)  There  is  no  ground  left  for 
any  such  distinction  in  this  place:  for  all  that  the  Apostle  re- 
quires to  our  justification  is,  (1)  That  we  be  found  in  Christ, 
not  in  ourselves.  (2)  That  we  have  the  righteousness  of  God, 
not  our  own.  (3)  That  we  be  made  partakers  of  this  righteous- 
ness by  faith,  which  is  the  substance  of  what  we  plead  for. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION,  BY  THE  IMPU- 
TATION OF  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST.  PERSONAL  HOLINESS 
AND    OBEDIENCE    NOT    OBSTRUCTED,    BUT    FURTHERED    BY    IT. 

That  which  remains  to  put  an  issue  to  this  discourse,  is  the 
consideration  of  some  things,  that  in  general  are  laid  in  objec- 
tion against  the  truth  pleaded  for.  Many  things  of  that  nature 
we  have  occasionally  met  with,  and  already  removed.  Yea,  the 
principal  of  those  which  at  present  are  most  insisted  on.     The 


IMPUTATION  OP  Christ's  righteousness.  419 

testimonies  of  Scripture  urged  by  those  of  the  Roman  Church 
for  justification  by  works,  have  all  of  them  so  fully  and  fre- 
quently been  answered  by  Protestant  divines,  that  it  is  alto- 
gether needless  to  insist  again  upon  them,  unless  they  had  re- 
ceived some  new  enforcement,  which  of  late  they  have  not 
done.  That  which  for  the  most  part  we  have  now  to  do  with, 
are  rather  sophistical  cavils  from  supposed  absurd  consequen- 
ces, than  real  theological  arguments.  And  some  of  those  who 
would  walk  with  most  wariness  between  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  and  justification  by  our  own  works, 
either  are  in  such  a  slippery  place,  that  they  seem  sometimes 
to  be  on  the  one  side,  sometimes  on  the  other,  or  else  to  express 
themselves  with  so  much  caution  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  ap- 
prehend their  minds.  I  shall  not  therefore  for  the  future  dare  to 
say,  that  this  or  that  is  any  man's  opinion,  though  it  appear  to 
me  so  to  be,  as  clear  and  evident  as  words  can  express  it;  but 
that  this  or  that  opinion,  let  it  be  maintained  by  whom  it  will, 
I  approve  or  disapprove,  this  I  shall  dare  to  say.  And  I  will 
say  also,  that  the  declination  that  has  been  from  the  common 
doctrine  of  justification  before  God,  on  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  daily  proceeds  towards  a  direct  asser- 
tion of  justification  by  works.  Nor  indeed  has  it  where  to  rest, 
until  it  comes  to  that  bottom.  And  this  is  more  clearly  seen 
in  the  objections  which  they  make  against  the  truth,  than  in 
what  they  plead  in  defence  of  their  own  opinions.  For  herein 
they  speak  as  yet  warily,  and  with  a  pretence  of  accuracy  in 
avoiding  extremes:  but  in  the  other,  or  their  objections,  they 
make  use  of  none  but  what  are  easily  resolved  into  a  supposi- 
tion of  justification  by  works  in  the  grossest  sense  of  it.  To 
insist  on  all  particulars  were  endless,  and  as  was  said,  most  of 
those  of  any  importance  have  already  occasionally  been  spoken 
to.  There  are  therefore  only  two  things  which  are  generally 
pleaded  by  all  sorts  of  persons.  Papists,  Socinians,  and  others, 
with  whom  here  we  have  to  do,  that  I  shall  take  notice  of.  The  • 
''first  and  fountain  of  all  others  is,  that  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  renders 
our  personal  righteousness  needless,  and  overthrows  all  neces- 
sity of  a  holy  life.  The  other  is,  that  the  Apostle  James  in  his 
epistle,  plainly  ascribes  our  justification  to  works,  and  what  he 
affirms  there,  is  inconsistent  with  that  sense  of  those  many, 
other  testimonies  of  Scripture  which  we  plead  for. 

For  the  first  of  these,  although  those  who  oppose  the  truth 
we  contend  for,  proceed  on  various  d liferent  and  contradictory 


420  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST   JUSTIFICATION   BY    THE 

principles  among  themselves  as  to  what  they  exalt  in  opposi- 
tion to  it,  yet  do  they  all  agree  in  a  vehement  urging  of  it.  For 
those  of  the  church  of  Rome  who  renewed  this  charge,  invent- 
ed of  old  by  others,  it  must  be  acknowledged  by  all  sober  men, 
are  guilty,  in  the  management  of  it,  of  an  open  calumny.  For 
the  wisest  of  them  and  those  of  whom  it  is  hard  to  conceive, 
but  that  they  knew  the  contrary,  as  Bellarmine,  Vasquez, 
Suarez,  openly  aver  that  Protestant  writers  deny  all  inherent 
righteousness;  (Bellarmine  excepts  Bucer  and  Chemnitius;) 
that  they  maintain  that  men  may  be  saved,  although  they  live 
in  all  manner  of  sin,  that  there  is  no  more  required  of  them, 
but  that  they  believe  that  their  sins  are  forgiven,  and  that 
whilst  they  do  so,  although  they  give  themselves  up  to  the 
most  sensual  vices  and  abominations,  they  may  be  assured  of 
their  salvation. 

Tantum  relligio  potuit  suadere  malorum. 

So  will  men  out  of  a  perverse  zeal  to  promote  their  own  in- 
terest in  the  religion  they  profess,  wilfully  give  up  themselves 
unto  the  worst  of  evils,  such  as  false  accusation  and  open  cal- 
umny, and  of  no  other  nature  are  these  assertions,  which  none 
of  the  writings  or  preachings  of  those  who  are  so  charged, 
ever  gave  the  least  countenance  to.  Whether  the  forging  and 
promulgation  of  such  impudent  falsehoods,  be  an  expedient  to 
obtain  justification  by  works  in  the  sight  of  God,  ihey  who 
continue  in  them  had  best  consider.  For  my  part  I  say  again, 
as  I  suppose  I  have  said  already,  that  it  is  all  one  to  me  what 
religion  men  are  of,  who  can  justify  themselves  in  such  courses 
and  proceedings.  And  for  those  among  ourselves  who  are 
pleased  to  make  use  of  this  objection,  they  either  know  what 
the  doctrine  is  which  they  would  oppose,  or  they  do  not.  If 
they  do  not,  the  wise  man  tells  them,  "  that  he  who  answereth 
a  matter  before  he  hear  it,  it  is  folly  and  shame  unto  him."  If 
•  they  do  understand  it,  it  is  evident  that  they  use  not  sincerity, 
but  artifices,  and  false  pretences  for  advantage,  in  their  hand- 
ling of  sacred  things,  which  is  scandalous  to  religion.  Socinus 
fiercely  manages  this  charge  against  the  doctrine  of  the  re-  ? 
formed  churches;  De  servat.  par.  4.  cap.  1.  And  he  made  it  i 
the  foundation  whereon,  and  the  reason  why,  he  opposes  the 
.doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  if  any 
'such  satisfaction  should  be  allowed,  which  yet  he  peremptorily  ^ 
denies.  And  he  has  written  a  treatise  to  the  same  purpose 
defended  by  Schlictingius  against  Meisnerus.     And  he  takes 


IMPUTATION    OF    CHRISt's    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  421 

the  same  honest  course  herein,  that  others  did  before  him.  For 
he  charges  it  on  the  divines  of  the  Protestant  churches,  that 
they  taught  that  God  justifieth  the  ungodly,  not  only  those  that 
are  so,  and  whilst  they  are  so,  but  although  they  continue  so; 
that  they  required  no  inherent  righteousness  or  holiness  in  any, 
nor  could  do  so  on  their  principles,  seeing  the  imputed  right- 
eousness of  Christ  is  sufficient  for  them,  although  they  live  in 
sin,  are  not  washed  nor  cleansed,  nor  give  up  themselves  to 
the  ways  of  duty  and  obedience  to  God  whereby  he  may  be 
pleased,  and  so  bring  in  libertinism  and  Antinomianism  into 
the  church.  And  he  thinks  it  a  sufficient  confutation  of  this 
doctrine  to  allege  against  it  that  "  neither  fornicators,  nor  idol- 
aters, nor  adulterers,  &c.  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God." 
And  these  are  some  of  those  v/ays  which  have  rendered  the 
management  of  controversies  in  religion  scandalous  and  abom- 
inable, such  as  no  wise  or  good  man  will  meddle  with,  unless 
compelled  for  the  necessary  service  of  the  church.  For  these 
things  are  openly  false,  and  made  use  of  with  a  shameful  dis- 
honesty to  promote  a  corrupt  design  and  end.  When  I  find 
men  at  this  kind  of  work,  I  have  very  little  concern  in  what 
they  say  afterwards,  be  it  true  or  false.  Their  rule  and  mea- 
sure is  what  serves  their  own  end,  or  what  may  promote  the 
design  and  interest  wherein  they  are  engaged,  be  it  right  or 
wrong.  And  as  for  this  man,  there  is  not  any  article  in  reli- 
gion, (the  principal  whereof  are  rejected  by  him)  on  whose  ac- 
count he  with  more  confidence  adjudges  us  to  eternal  ruin  than 
this  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  and  the  imputation  of  it  to  them 
that  believe.  So  much  darkness  is  there  remaining  on  the 
minds  of  the  most  of  men:  so  many  inveterate  prejudices  on 
various  occasions  are  they  pestered  with,  especially  if  not  un- 
der the  conduct  of  the  same  enlightening  Spirit,  that  some  will 
confidently  condemn  others  to  eternal  flames,  for  those  things 
whereon  they  place,  on  infallible  grounds,  their  hopes  of  eter- 
nal blessedness,  and  know  that  they  love  God  and  live  to  him 
on  their  account.  But  this  wretched  advantage  of  condemn- 
ing all  those  to  hell  who  dissent  from  them,  is  greedily  laid 
hold  of  by  all  sorts  of  persons.  For  they  thereby  secretly  se- 
cure their  own  whole  party 'in  persuasion  of  eternal  salvation, 
be  they  otherwise  what  they  will.  For  if  the  want  of  that 
faith  which  they  profess,  will  certainly  damn  men  whatever 
else  they  be,  and  how  good  soever  their  lives  be,  many  will 
easily  suffer  themselves  to  be  deceived  with  a  foolish  sophism, 
that  then  that  faith  which  they  profess  will  assuredly  save 

36 


422  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST   JUSTIFICATION    BY    THE 

them,  be  their  lives  what  they  please,  considering  how  it  falls 
in  with  their  inclinations.  And  hereby  they  may  happen  also 
to  frighten  poor  simple  people  into  a  compliance  with  them, 
whilst  they  peremptorily  denounce  damnation  against  them 
unless  they  do  so.  And  none  for  the  most  part  are  more  fierce 
in  the  denunciation  of  the  condemnatory  sentence  against 
others  for  not  believing  as  they  do,  than  those  who  so  live, 
that  if  there  be  any  truth  in  the  Scripture,  it  is  not  possible 
they  should  be  saved  themselves.  For  my  part  I  believe  that 
as  to  Christians  in  outward  profession,  all  unregenerate  unbe- 
lievers, who  obey  not  the  gospel  shall  be  damned,  be  they  of 
what  religion  they  will,  and  none  else;  for  all  that  are  born 
again,  truly  believe  and  obey  the  gospel,  shall  be  saved,  be 
they  of  what  religion  they  will,  as  to  the  differences  that  are 
at  this  day  among  Christians.  That  way  wherein  these  things 
are  most  effectually  promoted,  is  in  the  first  place  to  be  em- 
braced by  every  one  that  takes  care  of  his  own  salvation.  If 
they  are  in  any  way  or  church  obstructed,  that  church  or  way 
is  so  far  as  it  obstructs  them  to  be  forsaken.  And  if  there  be 
any  way  of  profession  or  any  visible  church  state  wherein  any 
thing  or  things  absolutely  destructive  of  or  inconsistent  with 
these  things  are  made  necessary  to  the  professors  of  it,  in  that 
way,  and  by  virtue  of  it,  no  salvation  is  to  be  obtained.  In 
other  things  every  man  is  to  walk  according  to  the  light  of  his 
own  mind,  for  -'  whatever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin."  But  I  return 
from  this  digression  occasioned  by  the  fierceness  of  him  with 
whom  we  have  to  do. 

For  the  objection  itself,  that  has  fallen  under  so  perverse  a 
management,  so  far  as  it  has  any  pretence  of  sobriety  in  it,  is 
this  and  no  other: — "  If  God  justify  the  ungodly  merely  by  his 
grace  through  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  so  that  works  of  obedience 
are  not  antecedently  necessary  to  justification  before  God,  nor 
are  any  part  of  that  righteousness  whereon  any  are  so  justified, 
then  are  they  no  way  necessary,  but  men  may  be  justified  and 
saved  without  them."  For  it  is  said  that  there  is  no  connexion 
between  faith  for  justification  as  by  us  asserted,  and  the  neces- 
sity of  holiness,  righteousness  or  obedience,  but  that  we  are  by 
grace  set  at  liberty  to  live  as  we  li^t',  yea  in  all  manner  of  sin, 
and  yet  be  secured  of  salvation.  For  if  we  are  made  righteous 
with  the  righteousness  of  another,  we  have  no  need  of  any 
righteousness  of  our  own.  And  it  were  well  if  many  of  those 
%vho  make  use  of  this  plea,  would  endeavour  by  some  other 
way  also  to  evidence  their  esteem  of  these  things;  for  to  dis- 


IMPUTATION    OF    CHUIST's    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  423 

pute  for  the  necessity  of  holiness,  and  Uve  in  the  neglect  of  it. 
is  uncomely. 

I  shall  be  brief  in  the  answer  that  here  shall  be  returned  to 
this  objection,  for  indeed  it  is  snfficiently  answered  or  obviated 
in  what  has  been  before  discoursed  concerning  the  nature  of 
that  faith  whereby  we  are  justified,  and  the  continuation  of  the 
moral  law  in  its  force,  as  a  rule  of  obedience  to  all  believers. 
An  unprejudiced  consideration  of  what  has  been  proposed  on 
these  heads  will  evidently  manifest  the  iniquity  of  this  charge, 
and  how  not  the  least  countenance  is  given  to  it  by  the  doc- 
trine pleaded  for.  Besides,  I  must  acquaint  the  reader  that 
some  while  since  I  have  published  an  entire  discourse  concern- 
ing the  nature  and  necessity  of  gospel  holiness,  with  the  grounds 
and  reasons  thereof  in  compliance  with  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
tion  that  has  now  been  declared.  Nor  do  I  see  it  necessary  to 
add  any  thing  thereto,  nor  do  I  doubt,  but  that  the  perusal  of 
it  will  abundantly  detect  the  vanity  of  this  charge.  (Dispensa- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  book  5.)  Some  few  things  may  be 
spoken  on  the  present  occasion. 

1.  It  is  not  pleaded  that  all  who  profess  or  have  in  former 
ages  professed  this  doctrine,  have  exemplified  it  in  a  holy  and 
fruitful  conversation.  Many,  it  is  to  be  feared,  have  been  found 
amongst  them  who  have  lived  and  died  in  sin.  Neither  do  I 
know  but  that  some  have  abiVsed:this  doctrine  to  countenance 
themselves  in  their  sins,  and  neglect  of  duty.  The  best  of  holy 
things  or  truths  cannot  be  secured  from  abuse,  so  long  as  the 
sophistry  of  the  old  serpent  has  an  influence  on  the  lusts  and 
depraved  minds  of  men.  So  was  it  with  them  of  old  who 
"  turned  the  grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness;"  or  from  the  doc- 
trine of  it  countenanced  themselves  in  i their  ungodly  deeds. 
Even  from  the  beginning  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  gospel  with 
the  grace  of  God  declared  therein,  was  so  abused.  Neither 
were  all  that  made  profession  of  it,  immediately  rendered  lioly 
and  righteous  thereby.  Many  from  the  first,  so  walked  as  to 
make  it  evident  that  their  belly  was  their  god,  and  their  end 
destruction.  It  is  one  thing  to  have  only  the  conviction  of 
truth  in  our  minds,  another  to  have  the  power  of  it  in  our 
hearts.  The  former  will  produce  an  outward  profession,  the 
latter  alone  eftect  an  inv/ard  renovation  of  our  souls.  However 
I  must  add  three  things  to  this  concession. 

1.  I  am  not  satisfied  that  any  of  those  who  at  present  oppose 
this  doctritte,  do  in  holiness  or  righteousness,  in  the  exercise  of 
faith,  love,  zeal,  self-denial,  and  all  other  Christian  graces,  sur- 


424  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    JUSTIFICATION    BY    THE 

pass  those  who  in  the  last  ages,  both  in  this  and  other  nations, 
firmly  adhered  to  it,  and  who  constantly  testified  to  that  effec- 
tual influence  which  it  had  upon  their  walking  before  God:  nor 
do  I  know  that  any  can  be  named  amongst  us  in  the  former 
ages,  who  were  eminent  in  holiness,  and  many  such  there  were, 
who  did  not  cordially  assent  to  that  imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  which  we  plead  for.  I  doubt  not  in  the  least, 
but  that  many  who  greatly  diff'er  from  others  in  the  explication 
of  this  doctrine,  may  be  and  are  eminently  holy,  at  least  sin- 
cerely so,  which  is  as  much  as  the  best  can  pretend  to.  But  it 
is  not  comely  to  find  some  others  who  give  very  little  evidence 
of  their  diligent  following  after  that  "  holiness,  without  which 
no  man  shall  see  God,"  vehemently  declaiming  against  that 
doctrine  as  destructive  of  holiness,  which  was  so  fruitful  in  it, 
in  former  days, 

2.  It  does  not  appear  as  yet  in  general,  that  an  attempt  to 
introduce  a  doctrine  contrary  to  it  has  had  any  great  success  in 
the  reformation  of  the  lives  of  men.  Nor  has  personal  right- 
eousness or  holiness  as  yet  much  thrived  under  the  conduct  of 
it,  as  to  what  may  be  observed.  It  will  be  time  enough  to  seek 
comitenance  to  it  by  declaiming  against  that  which  has  formerly 
had  better  eflects,  when  it  has  a  little  more  commended  itself 
by  its  fruits. 

3.  It  were  not  amiss,  if  this  part  of  the  controversy  might 
amongst  us  all,  be  issued  in  the  advice  of  the  Apostle  James, 
chap.  ii.  IS.  "  Show  me  thy  faith  by  thy  works,  and  I  will 
show  thee  my  faith  by  my  works."  Let  us  all  labour  that  fruits 
may  thus  far  determine  of  doctrines,  as  to  their  use,  to  the  in- 
terest of  righteousness  and  holiness.  For  that  faith  which  does 
not  evidence  itself  by  works,  that  has  not  this  ivbu^iv,  this  index, 
which  James  calls  for,  whereby  it  may  be  found  out  and  ex- 
amined, is  of  no  use  nor  consideration  herein.  Secondly,  the 
same  objection  was  from  the  beginning  laid  against  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Apostle  Paul,  the  same  charge  was  managed 
against  it,  which  sufficiently  argues,  that  it  is  the  same  doc- 
trine which  is  now  assaulted  with  it.  This  he  himself  more 
than  once  takes  notice  of,  Rom.  iii.  31:  '•'  Do  we  make  void  the 
law  through  faith?"  It  is  an  objection  that  he  anticipates 
against  his  doctrine  of  the  free  justification  of  sinners,  through 
faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ.  And  the  substance  of  the  charge 
included  in  these  words  is,  that  he  destroyed  the  law,  took  off 
all  obligation  to  obedience,  and  brought  in  Antinomianism.  So 
again,  Rom.  vi.  1.  "  What  shall  we  say  then.'*  shall  we  con- 


I 


IMPUTATION   OF    CHRIST's    RIGHTEOUSNESS,  425 

linue  ill  sin,  that  grace  may  abound?"  Some  thought  this  the 
natural  and  genuine  consequence  of  what  he  had  largely  dis- 
coursed concerning  justification  which  he  had  now  fully  closed; 
and  some  think  so  still.  If  what  he  taught  concerning  the  grace 
of  God  in  our  justification  be  true,  it  will  not  only  follow,  that 
there  will  be  no  need  of  any  relinquishment  of  sin  on  our  part, 
but  also  a  continuance  in  it  must  needs  tend  to  the  exaltation 
of  that  grace,  which  he  had  so  extolled.  The  same  objection 
he  repeats  again,  verse  15:  "  What  then,  shall  we  sin  because 
we  are  not  under  the  law  but  under  grace?"  And  in  sundry 
other  places  he  obviates  the  same  objection,  where  he  does  not 
absolutely  suppose  it,  especially  Ephes.  ii.  9,  10.  We  have 
therefore  no  reason  to  be  surprised  with,  nor  much  to  be  moved 
at  this  objection  and  charge,  for  it  is  no  other  but  what  was  in- 
sinuated or  managed  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  him- 
self, whatever  enforcements  are  now  given  it  by  subtlety  of 
arguing  or  rhetorical  exaggerations.  However,  it  is  evident, 
that  there  are  naturally  in  the  minds  of  men  efficacious  preju- 
dices against  this  part  of  the  mystery  of  the  gospel  which  began 
betimes  to  manifest  themselves,  and  ceased  not  until  they  had 
corrupted  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  church  herein.  And  it  were 
no  hard  matter  to  discover  the  principal  of  them,  were  that  our 
present  business;  however  it  has  in  part  been  done  before. 

3.  It  is  granted  that  this  doctrine  both  singly  by  itself,  or  in 
conjunction  with  whatever  else  concerns  the  grace  of  God  by 
Christ  Jesus,  is  liable  to  abuse  by  them  in  whom  darkness  and 
the  love  of  sin  are  predominant.  For  hence  from  the  very  be- 
ginning of  our  religion,  some  fancied  to  themselves  that  a  bare 
assent  to  the  gospel,  was  that  faith  whereby  they  should  be 
saved,  and  that  they  might  be  so,  however  they  continued  to 
live  in  sin,  and  a  neglect  of  all  duties  of  obedience.  This  is  evi- 
dent from  the  epistles  of  John,  James,  and  Jude,  in  an  especial 
manner.  Against  this  pernicious  evil  we  can  give  no  relief, 
whilst  men  will  "  love  darkness  more  than  light,  because  their 
deeds  are  evil."  And  it  would  be  a  fond  imagination  in  any 
to  think,  that  their  modellings  of  this  doctrine  after  this  man- 
ner, will  prevent  future  abuse.  If  they  will,  it  is  by  rendering 
it  no  part  of  the  gospel:  for  that  which  is  so  was  ever  liable  to 
be  abused  by  such  persons  as  we  speak  of. 

These  general  observations  being  premised  which  are  suffi- 
cient of  themselves,  to  discard  this  objection  from  any  place  in 
the  minds  of  sober  men,  I  shall  onlv  add  the  consideration  of 

36* 


426  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    JTSTIFICATION    BY    THE 

what  answers  the  Apostle  Paul  returns  to  it,  with  a  brief  appli- 
cation of  them  to  our  purpose. 

The  objection  made  to  the  Apostle  was,  that  he  made  void 
the  law,  that  he  rendered  good  works  needless,  and  that  on  the 
supposition  of  his  doctrine,  men  might  live  in  sin,  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  grace.  And  as  to  his  sense  hereof,  we  may  ob- 
serve, 

1.  That  he  never  returns  that  answer  to  it,  no  not  once, 
which  some  think  is  the  only  answer,  whereby  it  may  be  satis- 
fied and  removed:  namely,  the  necessity  of  our  own  personal 
righteousness  and  obedience  or  works  in  order  to  our  justifica- 
tion before  God.  For  that  by  faith  without  works,  he  under- 
stands faith  and  works,  is  an  unreasonable  supposition.  If  any 
yet  pretend  that  he  has  given  any  such  answer,  let  them  pro- 
duce it;  as  yet  it  has  not  been  made  to  appear.  And  is  it  not 
strange  that  if  this  indeed  were  his  doctrine,  arid  the  contrary 
a  mistake  of  it,  (namely,  that  our  personal  righteousness,  holi- 
ness, and  works  had  an  influence  upon  our  justification,  and 
were  in  any  sort  our  righteousness  before  God  therein,)  that  he 
who  in  an  eminent  manner  every  where  presses  the  necessity 
of  them,  and  shows  their  true  nature  and  use,  both  in  general  and 
in  particular  duties  of  all  sorts,  above  any  of  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  should  not  make  use  of  this  truth  in  answer 
to  an  objection  wherein  he  was  charged  to  render  them  all 
needless  and  useless?  His  doctrine  was  urged  with  this  objec- 
tion as  he  himself  acknowledged,  and  on  the  account  of  it  re- 
jected by  many,  Rom.  x.  3,  4.  Gal.  ii.  3.  He  saw  and  knew 
that  the  corrupt  lusts  and  depraved  affections  of  the  minds  of 
many  would  supply  them  with  subtle  arguings  against  it.  Yea 
he  foresaw  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  appears  in  many  places  of 
his  writings,  that  it  would  be  perverted  and  abused.  And  sure- 
ly it  was  highly  incumbent  on  him  to  obviate,  as  far  as  in  him 
lay,  these  evils,  and  so  to  state  his  doctrine  upon  this  objection, 
that  no  countenance  might  ever  be  given  to  it.  And  is  it  not 
strange  that  he  should  not  on  this  occasion,  once  at  least,  some- 
where or  other,  give  an  intimation,  that  although  he  rejected 
the  works  of  the  law,  yet  he  maintained  the  necessity  of  evan- 
gelical works,  in  order  to  our  justification  before  God  as  the 
condition  of  it,  or  that  whereby  we  are  justified  according  to 
the  gospel?  If  this  were  indeed  his  doctrine,  and  that  which 
would  so  easily  solve  this  difficulty,  and  answer  this  objection, 
as  both  of  them  are  by  some  pretended,  certainly  neither  his 


IMPUTATION   OF   CHRIST's    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  427 

wisdom  nor  his  care  of  the  church  under  the  conduct  of  the  in- 
fallible Spirit  would  have  suffered  him  to  omit  this  reply,  were 
it  consistent  with  the  truth  which  he  had  delivered.  But  he  is 
so  far  from  any  such  plea,  that  when  the  most  unavoidable 
occasion  was  administered  to  it,  he  not  only  waves  any  mention 
of  it,  but  in  its  stead  affirms  that  which  plainly  evidences  that 
he  allowed  not  of  it.  See  Eph.  ii.  9,  10.  Having  positively 
excluded  works  from  our  justification,  "  not  of  works  lest  any 
man  should  boast,"  it  being  natural  thereon  to  inquire,  to  what 
end  do  works  serve,  or  is  there  any  necessity  of  them?  instead 
of  a  distinction  of  works  legal  and  evangelical  in  order  to  our 
justification,  he  asserts  the  necessity  of  the  latter  on  other 
grounds,  reasons,  and  motives,  manifesting  that  they  were  those 
in  particular  which  he  excluded,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  consi- 
deration of  the  place.  Wherefore  that  we  may  not  forsake  his 
pattern  and  example  in  the  same  cause,  seeing  he  was  wiser 
and  holier,  knew  more  of  the  mind  of  God,  and  had  more  zeal 
for  personal  righteousness  and  holiness  in  the  church  than  we 
all,  if  we  are  pressed  a  thousand  times  with  this  objection  we 
shall  never  seek  to  deliver  ourselves  from  it,  by  answering  that 
we  allow  these  things  to  be  the  condition,  or  causes  of  our  jus- 
tification, or  the  matter  of  our  righteousness  before  God,  see- 
ing he  would  not  so  do. 

Secondly,  we  may  observe,  that  in  his  answer  to  this  objec- 
tion, whether  expressly  mentioned  or  tacitly  obviated,  he  in- 
sists not  any  where  upon  the  common  principle  of  moral  duties, 
but  on  those  motives  and  reasons  of  holiness,  obedience,  good 
works  alone,  which  are  peculiar  to  believers.  For  the  question 
was  not,  whether  all  mankind  v/ere  obliged  to  obedience  to 
God  and  the  duties  thereof  by  the  moral  law;  but  whether 
there  were  an  obligation  from  the  gospel  upon  believers  to 
righteousness,  holiness  and  good  works,  such  as  was  suited  to 
affect  and  constrain  their  minds  to  them.  Nor  will  we  admit 
of  any  other  state  of  the  question  but  this  only;  whether  upon 
the  supposition  of  our  gratuitous  justification  through  the  im- 
putation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  there  are,  in  the  gospel, 
grounds,  reasons,  and  motives  making  necessary,  and  effica- 
ciously influencing  the  minds  of  believers  to  obedience  and 
good  works.  For  those  who  are  not  believers,  we  have  nothing 
to  do  with  them  in  this  matter,  nor  do  we  plead  that  evangeli- 
cal grounds  and  motives  are  suited  or  effectual  to  work  them 
to  obedience;  yea,  we  know  the  contrary,  and  that  they  are 
apt  both  to  despise  them  and  abuse  them.   See  1  Cor,  i.  23, 24. 


428  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST   JUSTIFICATION    BY   THE 

2  Cor.  iv.  4.  Such  persons  are  under  the  law,  and  there  we 
leave  them  to  the  authority  of  God  in  the  moral  law.  But 
that  the  Apostle  confines  his  inquiry  to  believers,  is  evident  in 
every  place  wherein  he  makes  mention  of  it,  Rom.  vi.  2,  3. 
"  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein? 
Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,"  &c.  Eph.  ii.  10.  "  For  we  are  the  workmanship  of 
God,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works."  Wherefore 
we  shall  not  at  all  contend  what  cogency  to  duties  of  holiness, 
there  is  in  gospel  motives  and  reasons  to  the  minds  of  unbe- 
lievers, whatever  may  be  the  truth  in  that  case;  but  what  is 
their  power,  force  and  efficacy  towards  them  that  truly  believe. 

Thirdly,  The  answers  which  the  Apostle  returns  positively 
to  this  objection  wherein  he  declares  the  necessity,  nature,  ends 
and  use  of  evangelical  righteousness,  and  good  works,  are 
large,  and  many  comprehensive  of  a  great  part  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  gospel.  I  shall  only  mention  the  heads  of  some  of  them, 
which  are  the  same  that  we  plead  in  the  vindication  of  the 
same  truth. 

1.  He  pleads  the  ordination  of  God;  ''God  hath  before  or- 
dained that  we  should  walk  in  them;"  Eph.  ii.  10.  God  has 
designed  in  the  disposal  of  the  order  of  the  causes  of  salvation, 
that  those  who  believe  in  Christ  should  "  live  in,  walk  in, 
abound  in"  good  works  and  all  duties  of  obedience  to  God. 
To  this  end  are  precepts,  directions,  motives  and  encourage- 
ments every  where  multiplied  in  the  Scripture.  Wherefore  we 
say  that  good  works,  and  that  as  they  include  the  gradual  pro- 
gressive renovation  of  our  natures,  our  growth  and  increase  in 
grace,  with  fruitfulness  in  our  lives,  are  necessary  from  the  or- 
dination of  God,  from  his  will  and  command.  And  what  need 
there  any  further  dispute  about  the  necessity  of  good  works 
among  them  that  know  what  it  is  to  believe,  or  what  respect 
there  is  in  the  souls  and  consciences  of  believers  to  the  com- 
mands of  God? 

But  what  force,  say  some,  is  in  this  command  or  ordination 
of  God,  when  notwithstanding  it,  and  if  we  do  not  apply  our- 
selves to  obedience,  we  shall  be  justified  by  the  imputation  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  so  may  be  saved  without  them? 
I  say  (1)  as  was  before  observed,  that  it  is  believers  alone  con- 
cerning whom  this  inquiry  is  made,  and  there  is  none  of  them 
but  will  judge  this  a  most  unreasonable  and  senseless  objection, 
as  that  which  arises  from  an  utter  ignorance  of  their  state  and 
relation  to  God.     To  suppose  that  the  minds  of  believers  are 


I3IPUTATI0N    OF    CHRIST's    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  429 

not  as  much  and  effectually  influenced  with  the  authority  and 
commands  of  God  to  duty  and  obedience,  as  if  they  were  all 
given  in  order  to  their  justification,  is  to  consider  neither  what 
faith  is,  nor  what  it  is  to  be  a  believer,  nor  what  is  the  relation 
that  we  stand  in  to  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  nor  what 
are  the  arguments  or  motives  wherewith  the  minds  of  such 
persons  are  principally  affected  and  constrained.  This  is  the 
answer  which  the  Apostle  gives  at  large  to  this  exception, 
Rom.  vi,  2,  3.  (2)  The  whole  fallacy  of  this  exception  is  (1) 
In  separating  the  things  that  God  has  made  inseparable;  that 
is,  our  justification  and  our  sanctification.  To  suppose  that  the 
one  of  these  may  be  without  the  other,  is  to  overthrow  the 
whole  gospel.  (2)  In  confounding  those  things  that  are  dis- 
tinct, namely,  justification  and  eternal  actual  salvation;  the 
respect  of  works  and  obedience  being  not  the  same  to  them 
both,  as  has  been  declared.  Wherefore  this  imagination  that 
the  commands  of  God  to  duty,  however  given,  and  to  what 
ends  soever,  are  not  equally  obligatory  on  the  consciences  of 
believers,  as  if  they  were  all  given  in  order  to  their  justification 
before  God,  is  an  absurd  figment,  and  which  all  of  them  who 
truly  believe,  do  reject.  Yea  they  have  a  greater  power  upon 
them,  than  they  could  have,  if  the  duties  required  in  them  were 
in  order  to  their  justification,  and  so  were  antecedent  thereto. 
For  thereby  they  must  be  supposed  to  have  their  efficacy  upon 
them  before  they  truly  believe.  For  to  say  that  a  man  may  be  a 
true  believer,  or  truly  believe,  in  answer  to  the  commands  of 
the  gospel,  and  not  be  thereon  in  the  same  instant  of  time  abso- 
lutely justified,  is  not  to  dispute  about  any  point  of  religion,  but 
plainly  to  deny  the  whole  truth  of  the  gospel.  But  it  is  faith 
alone  that  gives  power  and  efficacy  to  gospel  commands,  effec- 
tually to  influence  the  soul  to  obedience.  Wherefore  this  obli- 
gation is  more  powerfully  constraining,  as  they  are  given  to 
those  that  are  justified,  than  if  they  were  given  them  in  order 
to  their  justification. 

Secondly,  The  Apostle  answers,  as  we  do  also,  "  Do  we  then 
make  void  the  law  through  faith?  God  forbid;  yea  we  estab- 
lish the  law."  For  although  the  law  is  principally  established 
in  and  by  the  obedience  and  sufierings  of  Christ,  Rom.  viii. 
3,  4;  X.  3,  4;  yet  is  it  not,  by  the  doctrine  of  faith  and  the  im- 
putation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  the  justification  of 
life,  made  void  as  to  believers.  Neither  of  these  exempts  them 
from  that  obligation  to  universal  obedience,  which  is  prescribed 
in  the  law.     They  are  still  obliged  by  virtue  thereof  "  to  love 


430  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST   JUSTIFICATION    BV   THE 

the  Lord  their  God  with  all  their  hearts,  and  their  neighbours 
as  themselves."  They  are  indeed  freed  from  the  law,  and  all 
its  commands  to  duty  as  it  abides  in  its  first  consideration,  "do 
this  and  live,"  the  opposite  whereto,  is  "cursed  is  every  one 
that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  law  to  do  them." 
For  he  th^  is  under  the  obligation  of  the  law  in  order  to  jus- 
tification and  life,  falls  inevitably  under  the  curse  of  it,  upon 
the  supposition  of  any  one  transgression.  But  we  are  made 
free  to  give  obedience  to  it,  on  gospel  motives,  and  for  gospel 
ends,  as  the  Apostle  declares  at  large,  Rom.  vi.  And  the  obli- 
gation of  it  is  such  to  all  believers,  that  the  least  transgression 
of  it  has  the  nature  of  sin.  But  are  they  hereon  bound  over 
by  the  law  to  everlasting  punishment,  or,  as  some  phrase  it, 
will  God  damn  them  that  transgress  the  law,  without  which  all 
this  is  nothing?  I  ask  again  what  they  think  hereof;  and  upon 
a  supposition  that  he  will  do  so,  what  they  further  think  will 
become  of  themselves?  For  my  part,  I  say  no;  even  as  the 
Apostle  saith,  "  there  is  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in 
Christ  Jesus."  Where  then,  they  will  say,  is  the  necessity  of 
obedience  from  the  obligation  of  the  law,  if  God  v/ill  not  damn 
them  that  transgress  it?  And  I  say,  it  were  well  if  some  men 
understood  what  they  say  in  these  things,  or  would  learn,  for 
a  while  at  least,  to  hold  their  peace.  The  law  equally  requires 
obedience  in  all  instances  of  duty,  if  it  require  any  at  all.  As 
to  its  obligatory  power,  it  is  capable  neither  of  dispensation  nor 
relaxation,  so  long  as  the  essential  differences  of  good  and  evil 
remain.  If  then  none  can  be  obliged  to  duty  by  virtue  of  its 
commands,  but  that  they  must  on  every  transgression  fall  under 
its  curse,  either  it  obliges  no  one  at  all,  or  no  one  can  be  saved. 
But  although  we  are  freed  from  the  curse  and  condemning 
power  of  the  law  by  him  who  has  made  an  end  of  sin  and 
brought  in  everlasting  righteousness,  yet  whilst  we  are  viatores 
in  order  to  the  accomplishment  of  God's  design  for  the  restora- 
tion of  his  image  in  us,  we  are  obliged  to  endeavour  after  all 
that  holiness  and  righteousness  which  the  law  requires  of  us. 

Thirdly,  The  Apostle  answers  this  objection,  by  discovering 
the  necessary  relation  that  faith  has,  to  the  death  of  Christ,  the 
grace  of  God,  with  the  nature  of  sanctification,  excellency,  use, 
and  advantage  of  gospel  holiness,  and  the  end  of  it  in  God's 
appointment.  This  he  does  at  large  in  the  whole  sixth  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  that  with  this  immediate  de- 
sign, to  show  the  consistency  of  justification  by  faith  alone, 
with  the  necessity  of  personal  righteousness  and  holiness.  The 


IMPUTATION    OF    CHRISt's    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  431 

due  pleading  of  these  things  would  require  a  just  and  full  ex- 
position of  that  chapter  wherein  the  Apostle  has  comprised  the 
chief  springs  and  reasons  of  evangelical  obedience.  I  shall  only 
say,  that  those  to  whom  the  reasons  of  it  and  motives  to  it, 
therein  expressed,  which  are  all  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  the  impiUation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
are  not  effectual  to  their  own  personal  obedience,  and  do  not 
demonstrate  an  indispensable  necessity  of  it,  are  so  unacquainted 
with  the  gospel,  the  nature  of  faith,  the  genius  and  incUnation 
of  the  new  creature  (for,  let  men  scoff  on  whilst  they  please, 
"  he  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  is  a  new  creature")  with  the  con- 
straining efficacy  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  love  of  Christ,  and 
with  the  economy  of  God  in  the  disposition  of  the  causes  and 
means  of  our  salvation,  that  I  shall  never  trouble  myself  to 
contend  with  them  about  these  things. 

Sundry  other  considerations  I  thought  to  have  added  to  the 
same  purpose;  and  to  have  showed  (1)  That  to  prove  the  ne- 
cessity of  inherent  righteousness  and  holiness,  we  make  use  of 
the  arguments  which  are  suggested  to  us  in  the  Scripture.  (2) 
That  we  make  use  of  all  of  them  in  the  sense  wherein,  and  to 
the  ends  for  which  they  are  urged  therein,  in  perfect  consist- 
ency with  what  we  teach  concerning  justification.  (3)  That 
all  the  pretended  arguments  or  motives  for  and  to  evangelical 
holiness  which  are  inconsistent  with  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  do  indeed  obstruct  and  overturn  it.  (4) 
That  the  holiness  which  we  make  necessary  to  the  salvation 
of  them  that  believe,  is  of  a  more  excellent,  sublime  and  heav- 
enly nature  in  its  causes,  essence,  operations,  and  effects,  than 
what  is  allowed  or  believed  by  the  most  of  those  by  whom 
the  doctrine  of  justification  is  opposed.  (5)  That  the  holiness 
and  righteousness  which  is  pleaded  for  by  the  Socinians  and 
those  that  follow  them,  in  nothing  exceeds  the  "  righteousness 
of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,"  nor  upon  their  principles  can 
any  man  go  beyond  them.  But  whereas  this  discourse  has 
already  much  exceeded  my  first  intention,  and  as  I  said  before, 
I  have  already  at  large  treated  on  the  doctrine  of  the  nature 
and  necessity  of  evangelical  holiness,  I  shall  at  present  omit 
the  further  handling  of  these  things  and  acquiesce  in  the  an- 
swers given  by  the  Apostle  to  this  objection. 


432  THE    DOCTRINK    OF    THE    APOSTLE    JAMES 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  DOCTRINK  OF  THE    APOSTLE  JAMES,  CONCERNING  FAITH  AND  WORKS, 
ITS  AGREEMENT  WITH  THAT  OF  PAUL. 

The  seeming  difference  that  is  between  the  Apostles  Paul  and 
James  in  what  they  teach  concerning  faith,  works,  and  justifi- 
cation, requires  our  consideration  of  it.  For  many  take  ad- 
vantage from  some  words  and  expressions  used  by  the  latter, 
directly  to  oppose  the  doctrine  fully  and  plainly  declared  by 
the  former.  But  whatever  is  of  that  nature  pretended  has 
been  so  satisfactorily  already  answered  and  removed  by  others, 
that  there  is  no  great  need  to  treat  of  it  again.  And  although 
I  suppose  that  there  will  not  be  an  end  of  contending  and 
writing  in  these  causes,  whilst  "  we  know  but  in  part,  and 
prophesy  but  in  part,"  yet  I  must  say,  that,  in  my  judgment, 
the  usual  solution  of  this  apparent  difficulty,  securing  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  through  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  from  any  concernment  or  contradiction 
in  the  discourse  of  James,  (chap.  ii.  14,  to  the  end,)  has  not 
been  in  the  least  impeached,  nor  has  liad  any  new  difficulty 
put  upon  it  in  some  late  discourses  to  that  purpose.  I  should 
therefore  utterly  forbear  to  speak  any  thing  hereof,  but  that  I 
suppose  it  will  be  expected  in  a  discourse  of  this  nature,  and 
hope  that  I  also  may  contribute  some  light  to  the  clearing  and 
vindication  of  the  truth.  To  this  purpose  it  may  be  observed, 
that  (1)  it  is  taken  for  granted  on  all  hands,  that  there  is  no 
real  repugnancy  or  contradiction  between  what  is  delivered 
by  these  two  Apostles.  For  if  that  were  so,  the  writings  of 
one  of  them  must  be  falsely  ascribed  to  him  whose  name  they 
bear,  and  uncanonica],as  the  authority  of  the  Epistle  of  James 
has  been  by  some  both  of  old  and  of  late  highly,  but  rashly 
questioned.  Wherefore  their  words  are  certainly  capable  of  a 
just  reconciliation.  That  we  cannot  attain  thereto,  or  that  we 
do  not  agree  therein,  is  from  the  darkness  of  our  own  minds, 
the  weakness  of  our  understandings,  and  with  too  many,  from 
the  power  of  prejudices. 

2.  It  is  taken  also  for  granted  on  all  other  occasions,  that 
when  there  is  an  appearance  of  repugnancy  or  contradiction 
in  any  places  of  Scripture,  if  some,  or  any  of  them,  do  treat 
directly,  designedly,  and  largely  about  the  matter  concerning 


CONCERNING    FAITH    AND    AVORKS.  433 

which  there  is  a  seeming  repugnancy  or  contradiction,  and 
others,  or  any  other  speak  of  the  same  things  only  occasion- 
ally, transiently,  in  order  to  other  ends,  the  truth  is  to  be  learn- 
ed, stated  and  fixed  from  the  former  places.  Or  the  interpre- 
tation of  those  places  where  any  truth  is  mentioned  only  occa- 
sionally with  reference  to  other  things  or  ends,  is,  as  to  that 
truth,  to  be  taken  from  and  accommodated  to  those  other  places 
wherein  it  is  the  design  and  purpose  of  the  holy  penman  to 
declare  it  for  its  own  sake,  and  to  guide  the  faith  of  the  church 
therein.  And  there  is  not  a  more  rational  and  natural  rule  of 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture  among  all  those  which  are  by 
common  consent  agreed  upon. 

3.  According  to  this  rule,  it  is  unquestionable  that  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  before  God  is  to  be  learned  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  from  them,  is  light  to  be  taken  in 
all  other  places  of  Scripture  where  it  is  occasionally  mentioned. 
Especially  it  is  so,  considering  how  exactly  this  doctrine  repre- 
presents  the  whole  scope  of  the  Scripture,  and  is  witnessed  to 
by  particular  testimonies,  occasionally  given  to  the  same  truth, 
without  number.  For  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  he  wrote 
of  this  subject  of  our  justification  before  God,  on  purpose  to 
declare  it  for  its  own  sake,  and  its  use  in  the  church,  and  thajt 
he  does  it  fully,  largely  and  frequently,  in  a  constant  hatniony 
of  expressions.  And  he  owns  those  reasons  that  pressed  him 
to  fulness,  and  accuracy  herein:  (1)  The  importance  of  the  doc- 
trine itself.  This  he  declares  to  be  such,  that  thereon  our  sal- 
vation immediately  depends;  and  that  it  was  the  hinge  where- 
on the  whole  doctrine  of  the  gospel  turned, — Jirticulus  stan- 
tis  aut  cadentis  Ecclesix,  Gal.  ii.  16,  21;  v.  4,  5.  (2)  The 
plausible  and  dangerous  opposition,  that  was  then  made  to  it. 
This  was  so  managed,  and  that  with  such  specious  pretences, 
that  very  many  were  prevailed  on,  and  turned  from  the  truth 
by  it,  as  it  was  with  the  Galatians,  and  many  detained  from  the 
faith  of  the  gospel  out  of  a  dislike  to  it,  Rom.  x.  3,  4.  What 
care  and  diligence  this  requires  in  the  declaration  of  any  truth 
is  sufficiently  known  to  them,  who  are  acquainted  with  these 
things ;  what  zeal,  care  and  circumspection  it  stirred  up  the 
Apostle  to,  is  manifest  in  all  his  writings.  (3)  The  abuse  which 
the  corrupt  nature  of  man  is  apt  to  put  upon  this  doctrine  of 
grace,  and  which  some  did  actually  pervert  it  to.  This  also 
he  takes  notice  of,  and  thoroughly  vindicates  it  from  giving 
the  least  countenance  to  such  wrestings  and  impositions.  Cer- 
tainly, never  was  there  a  greater  necessity  incumbent  on  any 

37 


434  THE    DOCTRINE     OF    THE    APOSTLE    JAMES 

person  fully  and  plainly  to  teach  and  declare  a  doctrine  of 
truth,  than  was  on  him  at  that  time  in  his  circumstances,  con- 
sidering the  place  and  duty  that  he  was  called  to.  And  no 
reason  can  be  imagined  why  we  should  not  principally  and  in 
the  first  place  learn  the  truth  herein,  from  his  declaration  and 
vindication  of  it,  if  withal  we  do  indeed  believe  that  he  was 
divinely  inspired,  and  divinely  guided  to  reveal  the  truth,  for 
the  information  of  the  church. 

As  to  what  is  delivered  by  the  Apostle  James,  so  far  as  our 
justification  is  included  therein,  things  are  quite  otherwise.  He 
does  not  undertake  to  declare  the  doctrine  of  our  justification 
before  God,  but  having  another  design  in  hand,  as  we  shall  see 
immediately,  he  vindicates  it  from  the  abuse  that  some  in  those 
days  had  put  it  to,  as  other  doctrines  of  the  grace  of  God, 
which  they  turned  into  licentiousness.  Wherefore  it  is  from 
the  writings  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  we  are  principally  to 
learn  the  truth  in  this  matter,  and  to  what  is  by  him  plainly 
declared  is  the  interpretation  of  other  places  to  be  accommo- 
dated. 

4.  Some  of  late  are  not  of  this  mind.  They  contend  earnestly, 
that  Paul  is  to  be  interpreted  by  James,  and  not  on  the  con- 
trary. And  to  this  end  they  tell  us  that  the  writings  of  Paul 
are  obscure,  that  sundry  of  the  ancients  take  notice  thereof, 
that  many  take  occasion  of  errors  from  them,  with  sundry 
things  of  a  like  nature,  indeed  scandalous  to  the  Christian  reli- 
gion'; and  that  James  writing  after  him,  is  presumed  to  give 
an  interpretation  to  his  sayings,  which  are  therefore  to  be  ex- 
pounded and  understood  according  to  that  interpretation.  I 
answer,  (1)  As  to  the  vindication  of  the  writings  of  Paul,  which 
begin  now  to  be  frequently  reflected  on  with  much  severity, 
(which  is  one  effect  of  the  secret  prevalency  of  the  atheism  of 
these  days)  as  there  is  no  need  of  it,  so  it  is  designed  for  a  more 
proper  place.  Only  I  know  not  how  any  that  can  pretend  to 
the  least  acquaintance  with  antiquity  can  plead  a  passage  out 
of  Irenaeus  wherein  he  was  evidently  himself  mistaken,  or  a 
rash  word  of  Origen,  or  the  like,  in  derogation  from  the  perspi- 
cuity of  the  writings  of  this  Apostle,  when  they  cannot  but 
know  how  easy  it  were  to  overwhelm  them  with  testimonies 
to  the  contrary  from  all  the  famous  writers  of  the  church  in 
several  ages.  For  instance,  Chrysostom  in  forty  places  gives 
an  account  why  some  men  understood  not  Paul's  writings, 
which  in  themselves  were  so  gloriously  evident  and  perspicu- 
ous.  I  shall  refer  them  only  to  the  preface  to  his  Exposition  of 


CONCERNING    FAITH    AND     WORKS,  435 

his  epistles,  of  which  kind  they  will  be  directed  to  more  in  due 
season.  But  Paul  needs  not  the  testimony  of  men,  nor  of  the 
whole  church  together,  whose  safety  and  security  it  is  to  be 
built  on  that  doctrine  which  he  taught.  In  the  mean  time  it 
would  not  be  unpleasant  to  consider  (but  that  the  perverseness 
of  the  minds  of  men  is  .rather  a  real  occasion  of  sorrow)  how 
those  who  have  the  same  design  do  agree  in  their  conceptions 
about  his  writings;  for  some  will  have  it,  that  if  not  all,  yet  the 
most  of  his  epistles  were  written  against  the  Gnostics,  and 
in  the  confutation  of  their  error;  others,  that  the  Gnostics 
took  the  occasion  of  their  errors  from  his  writings.  So  bold 
will  men  make  with  things  divine,  to  satisfy  a  present  interest. 

Secondly,  this  was  not  the  judgment  of  the  ancient  church 
for  three  or  four  hundred  years.  For  whereas  the  epistles  of 
Paul  were  always  esteemed  the  principal  treasure  of  the  church, 
the  great  guide  and  rule  of  the  Christian  faith,  this  of  Jamos 
was  scarce  received  as  canonical  by  many,  and  doubted  of  by 
the  most,  as  both  Eusebius  and  Jerome  testify. 

Thirdly,  the  design  of  the  Apostle  James  is  not  at  all  to 
explain  the  meaning  of  Paul  in  his  epistles,  as  is  pretended, 
but  only  to  vindicate  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  from  the  abuse 
of  such  as  used  their  "liberty  for  a  cloak  of  maliciousness,'' 
and  "turning  the  grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness,"  continued 
in  sin,  under  a  pretence  that  grace  had  abounded  to  that  end. 

Fourthly,  the  Apostle  Paul  does  himself,  as  we  have  declared, 
vindicate  his  own  doctrine  from  such  exceptions  and  abuses. 
Nor  have  we  any  other  doctrine  in  his  epistles,  than  what  he 
preached  all  the  world  over,  and  whereby  he  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Christian  religion,  e'specially  among  the  Gentiles. 

These  things  being  premised,  I  shall  briefly  evidence  that 
there  is  not  the  least  repugnancy  or  contradiction  between 
what  is  declared  by  these  two  Apostles,  as  to  our  justification, 
with  the  causes  of  it.  And  this  I  shall  do,  1.  By  some  general 
considerations  of  the  nature  and  tendency  of  both  their  dis- 
courses. 2.  By  a  particular  explication  of  tlie  context  in  that 
of  James.  And  under  the  first  head  I  shall  manifest,  (1)  That 
they  have  not  the  same  scope,  design  or  end  in  their  discourses ; 
that  they  do  not  consider  the  same  question,  nor  state  the  same 
case,  nor  determine  on  the  same  inquiry,  and  therefore  not 
speaking  to  the  same  thing,  do  not  contradict  one  another. 
(2)  That  as  faith  is  a  word  of  various  signification  in  the  Scrip- 
ture, and  as  we  have  proved  before,  denotes  that  which  is  of 
divers  kinds,  they  speak  not  of  the  same  faith,  or  faith  of  the 


436  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    APOSTLE    JAMES 

same  kind,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no  contradiction  in 
what  the  one  ascribes  to  it,  and  the  other  derogates  from  it, 
seeing  they  speak  not  of  the  same  faith.  (3)  That  they  do 
not  speak  o{  justification  in  the  same  sense,  nor  with  respect 
to  the  same  ends,  (4)  That  as  to  ivorks  they  both  intend  the 
same,  namely,  the  works  of  obedience  to  the  moral  law. 

1.  As  to  the  scope  and  design  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  the  ques- 
tion which  he  answers,  the  case  which  he  proposes  and  de- 
termines upon,. are  manifest  in  all  his  writings,  especially  his 
epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians.  The  whole  of  his  pur- 
pose is  to  declare,  how  a  guilty  convinced  sinner  comes, 
through  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  to  have  all  his  sins  par- 
doned, to  be  accepted  with  God,  and  obtain  a  right  to  the 
heavenly  inheritance,  that  is,  to  be  acquitted  and  justified  in 
the  sight  of  God.  And  as  the  doctrine  hereof  belonged  emi- 
nently to  the  gospel,  whose  revelation  and  declaration  to  the 
Gentiles  was  in  a  peculiar  manner  committed  to  him,  as  we 
have  lately  observed,  he  had  an  especial  reason  to  insist  much 
upon  it  from  the  opposition  that  was  made  to  it  by  the  Jews 
and  Judaizing  Christians,  who  ascribed  this  privilege  to  the 
law,  and  our  own  works  of  obedience  in  compliance  therewith. 
This  is  the  case  he  states,  this  the  question  he  determines  in 
all  his  discourses  about  justification;  and  in  the  explication 
thereof  declares  the  nature  and  causes  of  it,  as  also  vindicates 
it  from  all  exceptions.  For  whereas  men  of  corrupt  minds 
and  willing  to  indulge  their  lusts  (as  all  men  naturally  desire 
nothing  but  what  God  has  made  eternally  inconsistent,  namely, 
that  they  may  live  in  sin  here,  and  come  to  blessedness  here- 
after) might  conclude  that  if  it  were  as  he  declared,  that  we 
are  justified  freely  through  the  grace  of  God  by  the  imputa- 
tion of  a  righteousness  that  originally  and  inherently  is  not 
our  own,  then  was  there  no  more  required  of  us,  no  relin- 
quishment of  sin,  no  attendance  to  the  duties  of  righteousness 
and  holiness,  he  obviates  such  impious  suggestions,  and  shows 
the  consequence  of  them  on  the  doctrine  that  he  taught.  But 
this  he  does  not  do  in  any  place  by  intimating  or  granting 
that  our  own  works  of  obedience  or  righteousness  are  neces- 
sary to,  or  have  any  causal  influence  upon  our  justification 
before  God.  Had  there  been  a  truth  herein,  were  not  a  sup- 
position thereof  really  inconsistent  with  the  whole  of  his  doc- 
trine and  destructive  of  it,  he  would  not  have  omitted  the  plea 
of  it,  nor  ought  so  to  have  done,  as  we  have  shown.  And  to 
suppose  that  there  was  need  that  any  other  should  explain  and 


CONCERNING    FAITH    AND    AVORKS,  437 

vindicate  his  doctrine  from  the  same  exceptions  which  he  takes 
notice  of,  by  such  a  plea  as  he  himself  would  not  make  use  of 
but  rejects,  is  foolish  and  impious. 

The  Apostle  James  on  the  other  hand  had  no  such  scope  or 
design,  or  any  such  occasion  for  what  he  wrote  in  this  matter. 
He  does  not  inquire,  or  give  intimation  of  any  such  inquiry; 
he  does  not  state  the  case  how  a  guilty  convinced  sinner  whose 
mouth  is  stopped  as  to  any  plea  or  excuse  for  himself,  may  be 
justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  that  is  receive  the  pardon  of  sins, 
and  the  gift  of  righteousness  to  life.  To  resolve  this  question 
into  our  own  works  is  to  overthrow  the  whole  gospel.  But  he 
had  in  hand  a  business  quite  of  another  nature.  For  as  we 
have  said,  there  were  many  in  those  days  who  professed  the 
Christian  religion  or  faith  in  the  gospel,  whereon  they  pre- 
sumed that  as  they  were  already  justified,  so  there  was  nothing 
more  needful  to  them  that  they  might  be  saved.  A  desirable 
estate  they  thought  they  had  attained,  suited  to  all  the  interest 
of  the  flesh,  whereby  they  might  live  in  sin,  and  neglect  of  all 
duty  of  obedience,  and  yet  be  eternally  saved.  Some  suppose 
that  this  pernicious  conceit  was  imbibed  by  them  from  the 
poisonous  opinions  that  some  had  then  divulged,  according  as 
the  Apostle  Paul  foretold  that  it,  would  come  to  pass,  2  Tim. 
iv.  1 — 3.  For  it  is  generally  conceived  that  Simon 'Magus  and 
his  followers  had  by  this  time  infected  the  minds  of  many  with 
their  abominations,  and  amongst  them  this  was  one,  and  not 
the  least  pernicious,  "that  by  faith  was  intended  a  liberty  from 
the  law,  and  to  sin,  or  unto  them  that  had  it,  the  taking  away 
of  all  difference  between  good  and  evil ;"  which  was  afterwards 
improved  by  Basilides,  Valentinus  and  the  rest  of  the  Gnos- 
tics. Or  it  may  be  it  was  only  the  corruption  of  men's  hearts 
and  lives,  that  prompted  them  to  seek  after  such  a  countenance 
to  sin.  And  this  latter  I  judge  it  wag.  There  were  then  among 
professed  Christians,  such  as  the  world  now  swarms  with, 
\yho  suppose  that  their  faith,  or  the  religion  v/hich  they  pro- 
fess, be  it  what  it  may,  shall  save  them,  although  they  live  in 
flagitious  wickedness,  and  are  utterly  barren  as  to  any  good 
works  or  duties  of  obedience.  Nor  is  there  any  other  occasion 
of  what  he  writes  intimated  in  the  epistle;  for' he  makes  no 
mentioFi  of  seducers,  as  John  does  expressly  and  frequently, 
some  while  after.  Against  this  sort  of  persons,  or  for  their 
conviction  he  designs  two  things:  (1)  In  general  to  prove  the 
necessity  of  works  to  all  that  profess  the- gospel  or  faith  in 
Christ  thereby.     (2)  To  evidence  the  vanit;yiand  folly  of  their 

9,1*  '^V'Tv 


w 


.438  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    APOSTLE    JAMES 

pretence  to  justification,  or  that  they  were  justified  and  should 
be  saved,  by  that  faith  that  was  indeed  so  far  from  being  fruit- 
ful in  good  works,  that  it  was  pretended  by  them  only  to  coun- 
tenance themselves  in  sin.  To  these  ends  are  all  his  arguings 
designed  and  no  other.  He  proves  efl'ectually  that  the  faith 
which  is  wholly  barren  and  fruitless  as  to  obedience,  and 
which  men  pretended  to  countenance  themselves  in  their  sins, 
is  not  that  faith  whereby  we  are  justified,  and  whereby  we 
may  be  saved,  but  a  dead  carcass,  of  no  use  nor  benefit,  as 
he  declares  by  the  conclusion  of  his  whole  dispute,  in  the  last 
verse  of  the  chapter.  He  does  not  direct  any,  how  they  may 
be  justified  before  God,  but  convinces  some  that  they  are  not 
justified  by  trusting  to  such  a  dead  faith,  and  declares  the  only 
way  whereby  any  man  may  really  evidence  and  manifest  that 
he  is  so  justified  indeed.  This  design  of  his  is  so  plain,  that 
nothing  can  be  more  evident,  and  they  miss  the  whole  scope 
of  the  Apostle,  who  observe  it  not  in  their  expositions  of  the 
context.  Wherefore  the  principal  design  of  the  Apostles  being 
so  distant,  there  is  no  repugnancy  in  their  assertions,  though 
their  words  make  an  appearance  thereof  For  they  do  not 
speak  ad  idem^wox  of  things  eodem  respectu.  .James  does  not 
once  inquire  how  a  guilty  convinced  sinner,  cast  and  condemned 
by  the  law,  may  come  to  be  justified  before  God;  and  Paul 
speaks  to  nothing  else.  Wherefore  apply  the  expressions  of 
each  of  them  to  their  proper  design  and  scope,  as  we  must  do, 
or  we  depart  from  all  sober  rules  of  interpretation,  and  render 
it  impossible  to  understand  either  of  them  aright,  and  there  is 
no  disagreement  or  appearance  of  it  between  them.  . 

Secondly,  they  speak  not  of  the  same  faith.  Whei*efore  there 
can  be  no  discrepancy  in  what  one  ascribes  to  faith,' and  the 
other  denies  concerning  it,  seeing  they  understand  not  the  same 
thing  thereby,  for  they  speak  not  of  the  same  faith.  As  if  one 
affirms  that  fire  will  burn,  and  another  denies  it,  there  is  no 
contradiction  between  them,  whilst  one  intends  real  fire,  and 
the  other  only  that  which  is  painted,  and  both  declare  them- 
selves accordingly.  For  we  have  proved  before  that  there  are 
two  sorts  of  faith  wherewith  men  are  said  to  believe  the  Gos- 
pel, and  make  profession  thereof,  as  also  that  what  belongs  to 
the  one,  does  not  belong  to  the  other;  none  I  suppose  will  deny 
but  that  by  faith  in  the  matter  of  our  justification,  Paul  intends 
that  which  is  properly  so  called.  The  faith  of  God's  elect,  pre- 
cious faith,  more  precious  than  gold,  the  faith  that  purifies  the 
heart,  and  works  by  love,  the  faith  whereby  Christ  dwells  in 


CONCERNING    FAITH    AND    WORKS,  439 

US,  and  we  abide  in  him,  whereby  we  live  to  God,  a.  living 
faith,  is  that  alone  which  he  intends.  For  all  these  things,  and 
other  spiritual  effects  without  number,  he  ascribes  to  that  faith 
which  he  insists  on,  to  be  on  our  part  the  only  means  of  our 
justification  before  God.  But  as  to  the  faith  intended  by  the 
Apostle  James,  he  assigns  nothing  of  all  this  to  it;  yea,  the  only 
argument  whereby  he  proves  that  men  cannot  be  saved  by  that 
faith  which  he  treats  of,  is  that  nothing  of  all  this  is  found  in  it. 
That  which  he  intends  is,  what  he  calls  it,  a  dead  faith,  a  car- 
cass without  breath,  the  faith  of  devils,  a  wordy  faith,  that  is  no 
more  truly  what  it  is  called,  than  it  is  true  charity  to  send  away 
naked  and  hungry  persons  without  relief,  but  not  without  deri- 
sion. Well  may  he  deny  justification  in  any  sense  to  this  faith 
however  boasted  of,  when  yet  it  may  be  justly  ascribed  to  that 
faith  which  Paul  speaks  of. 

Bellarmine  uses  several  arguments  to  prove  that  the  faith 
here  intended  by  James^  is  justifying  faith  considered  in  itself; 
but  they  are  all  weak  to  contempt,  as  being  built  on  this  sup- 
position, that  true  justifying  faith  is  nothing  but  a  real  assent  to 
the  catholic  doctrine  or  divine  revelation.  De  Justificat.  lib.  1. 
cap.  15.  His  first  is,  '-that  James  calls  \i  faith  absolutely, 
whereby  always  in  the  Scripture  true  faith  is  intended."  I  an- 
swer, (I)  James  calls  it  a  dead  faith,  the  faith  of  devils,  and 
casts  all  manner  of  reproach  upon  it,  which  he  would  not  have 
done  on  any  duty  or  grace  truly  evangelical.  (2)  Not  every  faith 
that  is  true  as  to  the  reality  of  assent  which  is  given  by  it  to 
the  truth,  is  either  living,  justifying,  or  saving',  as  has  been 
proved.  (3)  They  are  said  to  have  faith  absolutely  or  abso- 
lutely to  believe,  wiio  never  had  that  faith  which  is  true  and 
saving,  John  ii.  23.  Act.  viii.  13.  Secondly,  he  urges  "that  in 
the  same  place  and  chapter  he  treats  of  the  faith  of  Abraham, 
and  affirms  that  it  wrought  with  his  works,  verses  22,  23.  But 
this  a  vain  shadow  of  faith  does  not  do;  it  was  therefore  true 
faith,  and  that  which  is  most  properly  called  so,  that  the  Apos- 
tle intends."  Answer.  This  pretence  is  indeed  ridiculous. 
For  the  Apostle  does  not  give  the  faith  of  Abraham  as  an  in- 
stance of  that  faith  vvhich  he  had  treated  with  so  much  severity, 
but  of  that  which  is  so  directly  contrary  to  it,  and  whereby  he 
designed  to  prove  that  the  other  faith  which  he  had  reflected 
on,  was  of  no  use  nor  advantage  to  them  that  had  it.  For  this 
faith  of  Abraham  produced  good  works,  which  the  other  was 
wholly  without.  Thirdly,  he  urges  verse  24,  "'  Ye  see  then 
how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only;' 


440  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    APOSTLE    JAMES 

For  the  faith  that  James  speaks  of  justifies  with  works,  but  a 
false  faith,  the  shadow  of  a  faith  does  not  so;  it  is  therefore 
true  saving  faith,  whereof  the  Apostle  speaks."  Answer.  He 
is  utterly  mistaken;  for  the  Apostle  does  not  ascribe  justifica- 
tion partly  to  works,  and  partly  to  faith;  but  he  ascribes  justi- 
fication in  the  vsense  by  him  intended,  wholly  to  works  in  oppo- 
sition to  that  faith  concerning  which  he  treats.  For  there  is  a 
plain  antithesis  in  the  words  between  works  and  faith  as  to  jus- 
tification in  the  sense  by  him  intended.  A  dead  faith,  a  faith 
without  works,  the  faith  of  devils  is  excluded  from  having  any 
influence  upon  justification.  Fourthly,  he  adds  "  that  the  Apos- 
tle compares  this  faith  without  works  to  a  rich  man  that  gives 
nothing  to  the  poor,  verse  16,  and  a  body  without  a  spirit, 
verse  26:  wherefore,  as  that  knowledge  whereby  a  rich  man 
knows  the  wants  of  the  poor  is  true  and  real,  and  a  dead  body 
is  a  body;  so  is  faith' without  works  true  faith  also,  and  as  such 
is  considered  by  Saint  James."  Answer.  These  things  evi- 
dently destroy  what  they  are  produced  to  confirm;  only  the 
Cardinal  helps  them  out  with  a  little  sophistry.  For  whereas 
the  Apostle  compares  this  faith  to  the  charity  of  a  man  that 
gives  nothing  to  the  poor,  he  suggests  in  the  room  thereof  his 
"knowledge"  of  their  poverty.  And  his  knowledge  may  be 
true,  and  the  more  true  and  certain  it  is,  the  more  false  and 
feigned  is  the  charity  which  he  pretends  in  these  words,  "  be 
fed  or  clothed."  Such  is  the  faith  the  Apostle  speaks  of  And 
although  a  dead  body  is  a  true  body,  that  is,  as  to  the  matter 
or  substance  of  it,  a  carcass;  yet  is  it  not  an  essential  part  of  a 
living  man.  A  carcass  is  not  of  the  same  nature  or  kind  as  is 
the  body  of  a  living  man.  And  we  assert  no  other  diflerence 
between  the  faith  spoken  of  by  the  Apostle,  and  that  which  is 
justifying,  than  what  is  between  a  dead  breathless  carcass  and. 
a  living  animated  body,  prepared  and  fitted  for  all  vital  acts. 
Wherefore  it  is  evident  beyond  all  contradiction,  if  we  have 
not  a  mind  to  be  contentious,  that  what  the  Apostle  James 
here  derogates  from  faith  as  to  our  justification,  respects  only 
a  dead,  barren,  lifeless  faith,  such  as  is  usually  pretended  by 
ungodly  men  to  countenance  themselves  ia  their  sins.  And. 
herein  the  faith  asserted  by  Paul  has  no  concern.  The  con- 
sideration of  the  present  condition  of  the  profession  of  faith  in 
the  world,  will  direct  us  to  the  best  exposition  of  this  place. 

Thirdly,  they  speak  not  of  justification  in  the  same  sense 
nor  to  the  same  end.  It  is  of  our  absolute  justification  before 
God,  the  justification  of  our  persons,  our  acceptance  with  him 


CONCERNING    FAITH    AND    WORKS.  441 

and  the  grant  of  a  right  to  the  heavenly  inheritance,  that  the 
Apostle  Paul  treats  and  thereof  alone.  This  he  declares  in  all 
the  causes  of  it,  all  that  on  the  part  of  God,  or  on  our  part, 
concurs  thereto.  The  evidence,  the  knowledge,  the  sense,  the 
fruit,  the  manifestation  of  it  in  our  own  consciences,  in  the 
church,  to  others  that  profess  the  faith,  he  treats  not  of,  but 
speaks  of  them  separately  as  they  occur  on  other  occasions. 
The  justification  he  treats  of,  is  but  one,  and  at  once  accom- 
plished before  God,  changing  the  relative  state  of  the  person 
justified,  and  is  capable  of  being  evidenced  various  ways  to 
the  glory  of  God  and  the  consolation  of  them  that  truly  believe. 
Hereof  the  Apostle  James  does  not  treat  at  all;  for  his  whole 
inquiry  is  after  the  nature  of  that  faith  whereby  we  are  justi- 
fied, and  the  only  way  whereby  it  may  be  evidenced  to  be  of 
the  right  kind,  such  as  a  man  may  safely  trust  to.  Wherefore 
he  treats  of  justification  only  as  to  the  evidence  and  manifes- 
tation of  it,  nor  had  he  any  occasion  to  do  otherwise.  And 
this  is  apparent  from  both  the  instances,  whereby  he  confirms 
his  purpose.  The  first,  is  that  of  Abraham,  ver.  21 — 23.  For 
he  says,  that  by  Abraham  being  justified  by  works  in  the 
way  and  manner  wherein  he  asserts  him  so  to  have  been, 
"  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled,  which  says  that  Abraham  be- 
haved God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness." 
And  if  his  intention  were  to  prove  that  we  are  justified  before 
God  by  works  and  not  by  faith,  because  Abraham  was  so,  the 
testimony  produced  is  contrary,  yea  directly  contradictory  to 
what  should  be  proved  by  it,  and  accordingly  is  alleged  by 
Paul  to  prove  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith  without 
works,  as  the  words  plainly  import.  Nor  can  any  man  de- 
clare, how  the  truth  of  this  proposition,  "  Abraham  vvas  justi- 
fied by  works,"  intending  absolute  justification  before  God, 
was  that  wherein  that  Scripture  was  fulfilled,"  "  Abraham 
believed  God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness;" 
especially,  considering  the  opposition  that  is  made  both  here 
and  elsewhere  between  faith  and  works  in  this  matter.  Be- 
sides, he  asserts  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  works  then 
when  he  had  ofl'ered  his  son  on  the  altar;  the  same  we  believe 
also,  but  only  inquire  in  what  sense  he  was  so  justified.  For 
it  was  thirty  years  or  thereabout  after  it  was  testified  concern- 
ing him,  that  he  *' believed  God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him 
for  righteousness;"  and  when  righteousness  was  imputed  to 
him,  he  was  justified.  And  twice  justified  in  the  same  sense, 
in  the  same  way,  with  the  same  kind  of  justification,  he  was 


442 


THE    DOCTRINE     OF    THE    APOSTLE    JAMES 


not.  How  then  was  he  justified  by  works  when  he  offered 
his  son  on  the  altar?  He  that  can  conceive  it  to  be  any  other- 
wise, but  that  he  was  by  his  work  in  the  offering  of  his  son 
evidenced  and  declared  in  the  sight  of  God  and  man  to  be  jus- 
tified, apprehends  what  I  cannot  attain  to,  seeing  that  he  was 
really  justified  long  before,  as  is  unquestionable  and  confessed 
by  all.  He  was  I  say  then  justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  in  the 
way  declared.  Gen.  xxii.  12;  and  gave  a  signal  testimony  to 
the  sincerity  of  his  faith  and  trust  in  God,  manifesting  the  truth 
of  that  Scripture,  "he  believed  God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto 
him  for  righteousness."  And  in  the  quotation  of  this  testi- 
mony the  Apostle  openly  acknowledges  that  he  was  really  ac- 
counted righteous,  had  righteousness  imputed  to  him,  and  was 
justified  before  God  (the  reasons  and  causes  whereof,  he  there- 
fore considers  not)  long  before  that  justification  which  he  as- 
cribes to  his  works,  which  therefore  can  be  nothing  but  the 
evidencing,  proving  and  manifestation  of  it:  whence  also  it 
appears  of  what  nature  that  faith  is  whereby  we  are  justified, 
the  declaration  whereof  is  the  principal  design  of  the  Apostle. 
,/  In  brief,  the  alleged  Scripture  that  "  Abraham  believed,  and 
it  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness,"  was  fulfilled  when 
he  was  justified  by  v/orks  on  the  offering  of  his  son  on  the 
altar,  either  by  the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  him,  or  by 
a  real  efficiency  or  working  righteousness  in  him,  or  by  the 
manifestation  and  evidence  of  his  former  justification,  or  some 
other  way  must  be  found  out.  (1)  That  it  was  not  by  impu- 
tation, or  that  righteousness  to  the  justification  of  life  was  not 
then  first  imputed  to  him,  is  plain  in  the  text;  for  it  was  so 
imputed  to  him  long  before,  and  that  in  such  a  way  as  the 
Apostle  proves  thereby,  that  righteousness  is  imputed  without 
works.  (2)  That  he  was  not  justified  by  a  real  efficiency  of  a 
habit  of  righteousness  in  him,  or  by  any  way  of  making  him 
inherently  righteous,  who  was  before  unrighteous  is  plain  also, 
because  he  was  righteous  in  that  sense  long  before,  and  had 
abounded  in  the  works  of  righteousness  to  the  praise  of  God. 
It  remains  therefore,  that  then,  and  by  the  work  mentioned,  he 
was  justified  as  to  the  evidencing  and  manifestation  of  his 
faith  and  justification  thereon.  His  other  instance  is  of  Rahab 
concerning  whom  he  asserts  that  she  was  justified  by  works 
when  she  had  received  the  messengers  and  sent  them  away. 
But  she  received  the  spies  by  faith,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  wit- 
nesses, Heb.  xi.  31;  and  therefore  had  true  faith  before  their 
coming;  and  if  so,  was  really  justified.     For  that  any  one 


CONCERNING    FAITH    AND    WORKS.  443 

should  be  a  true  believer,  and  yet  not  be  justified,  is  destruc- 
tive of  the  foundation  of  the  gospel.  In  this  condition  she  re- 
ceived the  messengers,  and  made  to  them  a  full  declaration  of 
her  faith.  Josh.  ii.  10,  11.  After  her  believing  and  justifica- 
tion thereon,  and  after  the  confession  she  had  made  of  her 
faith,  she  exposed  her  life  by  concealing  and  sending  them 
away.  Hereby  did  she  justify  the  sincerity  of  her  faith  and 
confession,  and  in  that  sense  alone  is  said  to  be  justified  by 
works.  And  in  no  other  sense  does  the  Apostle  James  in  this 
place  make  mention  of  justification,  which  he  does  also  only 
occasionally. 

Fourthly,  as  to  "  works"  mentioned  by  both  Apostles,  the 
same  works  are  intended,  and  there  is  no  disagreement  in  the 
least  about  them.  For  as  the  Apostle  James  intends  by  works, 
duties  of  obedience  to  God  according  to  the  law,  as  is  evident 
from  the  whole  first  part  of  the  chapter,  which  gives  occasion 
to  the  discourse  of  faith  and  works;  so  the  same  are  intended 
by  the  Apostle  Paul  also,  as  we  have  proved  before.  And  as 
to  the  necessity  of  them  in  all  believers,  both  to  other  ends,  and 
as  evidences  of  their  faith  and  justification,  it  is  no  less  pressed 
by  the  one  than  the  other,  as  has  been  declared. 

These  things  being  in  general  premised,  we  may  observe 
some  things  in  particular  from  the  discourse  of  the  Apostle 
James,  sufficiently  evidencing  that  there  is  no  contradiction 
therein,  to  what  is  delivered  by  the  Apostle  Paul  concerning 
our  justification  by  faith  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness 
without  works,  nor  to  the  doctrine  which  from  him  we  have 
learned  and  declared;  as  (1)  He  makes  no  composition  or  con- 
junction between  faith  and  works  in  our  justification,  but  op- 
poses them  the  one  to  the  other,  asserting  the  one  and  rejecting 
the  other  in  order  to  our  justification.  (2)  He  makes  no  dis- 
tinction of  a  first  and  second  justification,  of  the  beginning  and 
continuation  of  justification,  but  speaks  of  one  justification  only 
which  is  our  first  personal  justification  before  God.  Neither 
are  we  concerned  in  any  other  justification  in  this  cause  what- 
ever. (3)  He  ascribes  this  justification  wholly  to  works  in  con- 
tradistinction to  faith,  as  to  that  sense  of  justification  which  he 
intended,  and  the  faith  whereof  he  treated.  Wherefore  (4)  He 
does  not  at  all  inquire  or  determine  how  a  sinner  is  justified 
before  God,  but  how  professors  of  the  gospel  can  prove  or  de- 
monstrate that  they  are  so,  and  that  they  do  not  deceive  them- 
selves by  trusting  to  a  lifeless  and  barren  faith.  All  these  things 
will  be  further  evidenced  in  a  brief  consideration  of  the  context 
itself,  wherewith  I  shall  close  this  discourse. 


444  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    APOSTLE    JAMES 

In  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  to  verse  14,  he  reproves 
those  to  whom  he  wrote  for  many  sins  committed  against  the 
law,  the  rule  of  their  sins  and  obedience,  or  at  least  warns 
them  of  them;  and  having  showed  the  danger  they  were  in 
hereby,  he  discovers  the  root  and  principal  occasion  of  it,  verse 
14,  which  was  no  otber  but  a  vain  surmise  and  deceiving  pre- 
sumption that  the  faith  required  in  the  gospel  was  nothing  but 
a  bare  assent  to  the  doctrine  of  it,  whereon  they  were  delivered 
from  all  obligation  to  moral  obedience  or  good  works,  and 
might  without  any  danger  to  their  eternal  state  live  in  what- 
ever sins  their  lusts  inclined  them  to,  chap.  iv.  1 — 4;  v.  1 — 5, 
The  state  of  such  persons  which  contains  the  whole  cause 
which  he  speaks  to,  and  which  gives  rule  and  measure  to  the 
interpretation  of  all  his  future  arguings,  is  laid  down,  verse  14. 
"  What  doth  it  profit,  my  brethren,  though  a  man  say  he  hath 
faith  and  have  not  works?  can  faith  save  him?"  Suppose  a 
man,  any  one  of  those  who  are  guilty  of  the  sins  charged  on 
them  in  the  foregoing  verses,  do  yet  say,  or  boast  of  himself, 
that  he  has  faith,  that  he  makes  profession  of  the  gospel,  that 
he  has  left  either  Judaism  or  Paganism,  and  betaken  himself 
to  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  and  therefore  although  he  be  desti- 
tute of  good  works,  and  live  in  sin,  he  is  acccepted  with  God 
and  shall  be  saved;  will  indeed  this  faith  save  him?  This 
therefore  is  the  question  proposed:  Whereas  the  gospel  saith 
plainly,  that  "he  who  believeth  shall  be  saved;"  whether  that 
faith  which  may  and  does  consist  with  an  indulgence  in  sin, 
and  a  neglect  of  duties  of  obedience,  is  that  faith  whereto 
the  promise  of  life  and  salvation  is  annexed?  And  thereon, 
the  inquiry  proceeds,  how  any  man,  in  particular  he  who  says 
he  hath  faith,  may  prove  and  evidence  himself. to  have  that 
faith  which  will  secure  his  salvation?  And  the  Apostle  denies 
that  this  is  such  a  faith  as  can  consist  without  works,  or  that 
any  man  can  evidence  himself  to  have  true  faith  any  otherwise 
but  by  works  of  obedience  only.  And  in  the  proof  hereof  his 
whole  ensuing  discourse  consists.  Not  once  does  he  propose 
to  consideration  the  means  and  causes  of  the  justification  of  a 
convinced  sinner  before  God,  nor  had  he  any  occasion  so  to  do. 
So  that  his  words  are  openly  wrested  when  they  are  applied  to 
any  such  intention. 

That  the  faith  which  he  intends  and  describes,  is  altogether 
useless  to  the  end  pretended  to  be  attainable  by  it,  namely, 
salvation,  he  proves  in  an  instance  of,  and  by  comparing  it  with 
the  love  or  charity  of  a  like  nature,  verses  15, 16.  "  If  a  brother 


CONCERNING    FAITH    AND    WORKS.  445 

or  sister  be  naked  and  destitute  of  daily  food,  and  one  of  you 
say  unto  them,  depart  in  peace,  be  ye  warmed  and  filled,  not- 
withstanding ye  give  them  not  those  things  which  are  needful 
to  the  body,  what  doth  it  profit?"  This  love  or  charity  is  not 
that  gospel  grace  which  is  required  of  us  under  that  name;  for 
he  who  behaves  himself  thus  towards  the  poor,  "  the  love  of 
God  dwelleth  not  in  him,"  1  John  iii.  17,  whatever  name  it 
may  have,  whatever  it  may  pretend  to,  whatever  it  may  be 
professed  or  accepted  for,  love  it  is  not,  nor  has  any  of  the 
effects  of  love;  it  is  neither  useful  nor  profitable.  Hence  the 
Apostle  infers,  verse  17,  "Even  so  faith,  if  it  hath  not  works, 
is  dead  being  alone."  For  this  was  what  he  undertook  to 
prove,  not  that  we  are  not  justified  by  faith  alone  without 
works  before  God,  but  that  the  faith  which  is  alone  without 
works,  is  dead,  useless  and  unprofitable. 

Having  given  this  first  evidence  to  the  conclusion  which  in 
thesi  he  designed  to  prove,  he  resumes  the  question  and  states 
it  in  hypothesi,  so  as  to  give  it  a  more  full  demonstration, 
verse  15.  "  Yea  a  man  may  say,  thou  hast  faith,  and  I  have 
works,  show  me  thy  faith  without  thy  works,  (ihat  is,  which 
is  without  works;  or  by  thy  works)  and  I  will  show  thee  my 
faith  by  my  works."  It  is  plain  beyond  denial,  that  the  Apostle 
here  again  proposes  his  main  question  only  on  a  supposition 
that  there  is  a  dead  useless  faith,  which  he  had  proved  before. 
For  now  all  the  inquiry  remaining  is  how  true  faith,  or  that 
which  is  of  the  right  gospel  kind,  may  be  shown,  evidenced  or 
demonstrated,  so  that  their  folly  may  appear,  who  trust  to 
any  other  faith  whatever.  Astlov  jwot  tviv  Ttiativ  aov,  "evidence 
or  demonstrate  thy  faith"  to  be  true  by  the  only  means  thereof, 
which  is  works.  And  therefore  although  he  says,  "  thou  hast 
faith,"  that  is,  thou  professest  and  boastest  that  thou  hast  that 
faith  whereby  thou  mayest  be  saved,  "and  I  have  works,"  he 
does  not  say,  "show  me  thy  faith  by  thy  works,  and  I  will 
show  thee  my  works  by  my  faith,"  which  the  antithesis  would 
require,  but  "  I  will  show  thee  my  faith  by  my  works,"  be- 
cause the  whole  question  was  concerning  the  evidencing  of 
faith  and  not  of  works. 

That  this  faith  which  cannot  be  evidenced  by  works,  which 
is  not  fruitful  in  them,  but  consists  only  in  a  bare  assent  to  the 
truth  of  divine  revelation,  is  not  the  faith  that  justifies  or  will 
save  us,  he  further  proves,  in  that  it  is  no  other  but  what  the 
devils  themselves  have;  and  no  man  can  think  or  hope  to  be 
saved   by  that  which  is  common   to  them  with  devils,  and 

38 


446  THE    DOCTRINE     OF    THE    APOSTLE    JAMES 

wherein  they  do  much  exceed  them,  verse  11.  "Thou  he- 
he  vest  there  is  one  God;  thou  dost  well;  the  devils  also  be- 
lieve and  tremble."  The  belief  of  one  God  is  not  the  whole 
of  what  the  devils  believe,  but  is  singled  out  as  the  principal 
fundamental  truth,  and  on  the  concession  whereof  an  assent  to 
all  divine  revelation  necessarily  ensues.  And  this  is  the  second 
argument,  whereby  he  proves  an  empty  barren  faith  to  be 
dead  and  useless. 

The  second  confirmation  being  given  to  his  principal  asser- 
tion, he  restates  it  in  that  way,  and  under  those  terms  wherein 
he  designed  it  to  its  last  confirmation.  "  But  wilt  thou  know, 
0  vain  man,  that  faith  without  works  is  dead?"  verse  20. 
And  we  may  consider  in  the  words,  (1)  The  person  with 
whom  he  deals  whose  conviction  he  endeavoured;  him  he  calls 
a  "  vain  man,"  not  in  general,  as  every  man  living  is  "  alto- 
gether vanity,"  but  as  one  who  in  an  especial  manner  is 
"  vainly  puffed  up  in  his  own  fleshly  mind,"  one  that  has  en- 
tertained vain  imaginations  of  being  saved  by  an  empty  pro- 
fession of  the  gospel,  without  any  fruit  of  obedience.  (2)  That 
which  he  designs  with  respect  to  this  vain  man  is  his  convic- 
tion, a  conviction  of  that  foolish  and  pernicious  error  that  he 
had  imbibed;  "wilt  thou  know,  0  vain  man?"  (3)  That 
which  alone  he  designed  to  convince  him  of  is,  "that  faith 
without  works  is  dead;"  that  is,  the  faith  which  is  without 
works,  which  is  barren  and  unfruitful,  is  dead  and  useless. 
That  alone  is  all  that  he  undertakes  to  prove  by  his  follow- 
ing instances,  and  arguings,  neither  do  they  prove  any  more. 
To  wrest  his  words  to  any  other  purpose  when  they  are  all 
proper  and  suited  to  what  he  expresses  as  his  only  design,  is 
to  offer  violence  to  them. 

This  therefore  he  proves  by  the  consideration  of  the  faith  of 
Abraham,  verse  21.  "  Was  not  Abraham  our  father  justified 
by  works,  when  he  had  offered  Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar?" 
Some  things  must  be  observed  to  clear  the  mind  of  the  Apostle 
herein.  As  (1)  it  is  certain  that  Abraham  was  justified  many 
years  before  the  work  instanced  was  performed:  for  long  be- 
fore was  that  testimony  given  concerning  him,  "he  believed 
in  the  Lord,  and  he  counted  it  unto  him  for  righteousness," 
and  the  imputation  of  righteousness  upon  believing  is  all  the 
justification  we  inquire  after  or  will  contend  about.  (2)  It  is 
certain  that  in  the  relation  of  the  story  here  repeated  by  the 
Apostle,  there  is  not  any  one  word  spoken  of  Abraham's  being 
then  justified  before  God,  by  that  or  any  other  work  whatever. 


CONCERNING    FAITH    AND    WORKS.  447 

But  (3)  it  is  plain  and  evident  that  in  the  place  referred  to, 
Abraham  was  declared  to  be  justified  by  an  open  attestation  to 
his  faith  and  fear  of  God  as  sincere,  and  that  they  had  evi- 
denced themselves  so  to  be,  in  the  sight  of  God  himself,  which 
God  condescends  to  express  by  an  assumption  of  human  afiec- 
tions,  Gen.  xxii.  12.  "Now  I  know  that  thou  fearest  God, 
seeing  thou  hast  not  withheld  thy  son,  thine  only  son  from 
me."  That  this  is  the  justification  which  the  Apostle  intends 
cannot  be  denied,  but  out  of  love  to  strife.  And  this  was  the 
manifestation  and  declaration  of  the  truth  and  sincerity  of  his 
faith  whereby  he  was  justified  before  God.  And  hereby  the 
Apostle  directly  and  undeniably  proves  what  he  produces  this 
instance  for;  nameljr,  that  "faith  without  works  is  dead." 
(4)  It  is  no  less  evident  that  the  Apostle  had  not  spoken  any 
thing  before,  as  to  our  justification  before  God,  and  the  means 
thereof;  audit  is  therefore  absurdly  imagined  here  to  introduce 
it  in  the  proof  of  what  he  had  before  asserted,  which  it  does 
not  prove  at  all.  (5)  The  only  safe  rule  of  interpreting  the 
meaning  of  the  Apostle,  next  to  the  scope  and  design  of  his 
present  discourse,  which  he  makes  manifest  in  the  reiterated 
proposition  of  it,  and  the  scope  of  the  places,  is  matter  of  fact, 
with  its  circumstances  which  he  refers  to,  and  takes  his  proof 
from,  and  they  were  plainly  these  and  no  other.  Abraham 
had  been  long  a  justified  believer,  for  there  were  thirty  years 
or  thereabout,  between  the  testimony  given  thereto,  Gen.  xv. 
and  the  story  of  sacrificing  his  son  related  Gen.  xxii.  All  this 
while  he  "  walked  with  God,  and  was  upright"  in  a  course  of 
holy  fruitful  obedience.  Yet  it  pleased  God  to  put  his  faith, 
after  many  others,  to  a  new,  his  greatest,  his  last  trial.  And  it 
is  the  way  of  God  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  try  the  faith  of 
them  that  believe  by  such  ways  as  seem  meet  to  him.  Hereby 
he  manifests  how  precious  it  is  (the  trial  of  faith  making  it 
appear  to  be  "  more  precious  than  gold,"  1  Pet.  i.  7,)  and 
raises  up  glory  to  himself,  which  it  is  in  the  nature  of  faith  to 
give  to  him,  Rom.  iv.  20.  And  this  is  the  state  of  the  case  as 
proposed  by  the  Apostle;  namely, how  it  may  be  tried  whether 
the  faith  which  men  profess  be  genuine,  precious,  more  pre- 
cious than  gold,  of  the  right  nature  with  that  whereto  the  gos- 
pel promise  of  salvation  is  annexed.  2.  This  trial  was  made 
by  works  or  by  one  signal  duty  of  obedience  prescribed  to 
him  for  that  very  end  and  purpose.  For  Abraham  was  to  be 
proposed  as  a  pattern  to  all  that  should  afterwards  believe. 
And  God  provided  a  signal  way  for  the  trial  of  his  faith ;  namely, 


448 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   THE   APOSTLE   JAMES 


by  an  act  of  obedience,  which  was  so  far  from  being  enjoined 
by  the  moral  law  that  it  seemed  contrary  to  it.  And  if  he  be 
proposed  to  us  as  a  pattern  of  justification  by  works  in  the  sight 
of  God,  it  must  be  by  such  works  as  God  has  not  required  in 
the  moral  law,  but  such  as  seem  to  be  contrary  thereto.  Nor 
can  any  man  receive  any  encouragement  to  expect  justification 
by  works,  by  telHng  him  that  "Abraham  was  justified  by 
works,  when  he  offered  up  his  only  son  to  God;"  for  it  will  be 
easy  for  him  to  say,  that  as  no  such  work  was  ever  performed 
by  him,  so  none  such  was  ever  required  of  him.  But  3.  Upon 
Abraham's  compliance  with  the  command  of  God,  given  him 
in  the  way  of  trial,  God  himself  after  the  manner  of  men,  de- 
clares the  sincerity  of  his  faith  and  his  justification  thereon,  or 
his  gracious  acceptance  of  him.  This  is  the  whole  design  of 
the  place  which  the  Apostle  produces  to  his  purpose;  and  it 
contains  the  whole  of  what  he  was  to  prove  and  no  more. 
Plainly  it  is  granted  in  it  that  we  are  not  justified  by  our 
works  before  God,  seeing  he  instances  only  a  work  performed 
by  a  justified  believer  many  years  after  he  was  absolutely 
justified  before  God.  But  this  is  evidently  proved  hereby; 
namely,  that  faith  without  works  is  dead;  seeing  justifying  faith, 
as  is  evident  in  the  case  of  Abraham,  is  that  and  that  alone, 
which  brings  forth  works  of  obedience;  for  on  such  a  faith  alone, 
is  a  man  evidenced,  declared  and  pronounced  to  be  justified  or 
accepted  with  God.  Abraham  was  not  then  first  justified;  he 
was  not  then  said  to  be  justified,  he  was  declared  to  be  justified, 
and  that  by  and  upon  his  works;  which  contains  the  whole  of 
what  the  Apostle  intends  to  prove. 

There  is  therefore  no  appearance  of  the  least  contradiction 
between  this  Apostle  and  Paul  who  professedly  asserts,  that 
"  Abraham  was  not  justified  before  God  by  works."  For 
Jam.es  only  declares  that  by  the  works  which  he  performed 
after  he  was  justified,  he  was  manifested  and  declared  so  to 
be.  And  that  this  was  the  whole  of  his  design,  he  manifests 
in  the  next  verses,  where  he  declares  what  he  had  proved  by 
this  instance,  ver.  22.  "  Seest  thou  how  faith  wrought  with  his 
works,  and  by  works  was  faith  made  perfect?"  Two  things 
he  enforces  as  proved  to  the  conviction  of  him,  with  whom  he 
had  to  do.  (1)  That  true  faith  will  operate  by  works;  so  did 
Abraham's,  it  was  effective  in  obedience.  (2)  That  it  was 
"  made  perfect  by  works,"  that  is  evidenced  so  to  be.  For 
ri-ksioi,  tixecoo/^ai  uo  whcre  in  the  Scripture  signify  the  internal, 
formal  perfecting  of  any  thing,  but  only  the  external  comple- 


CONCERNING    FAITH    AND    WORKS.  449 

ment  or  perfection  of  it,  or  the  manifestation  of  it.  It  was 
complete  as  to  its  proper  effect,  when  he  was  first  justified; 
and  it  was  now  manifested  so  to  be.  See  Matt.  v.  48.  Col.  iv. 
12.  2  Cor.  xii.  9.  This,  says  the  Apostle,  I  have  proved  in 
the  instance  of  Abraham;  namely,  that  it  is  works  of  obedi- 
ence alone  that  can  evince  a  man  to  be  justified,  or  to  have 
that  faith  whereby  he  may  be  so.  (3)  He  adds  in  the  confir- 
mation of  what  he  had  affirmed,  ver.  23.  "  And  the  Scripture 
was  fulfilled,  which  saith,  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness,  and  he  was  called  the 
friend  of  God." 

Two  things  the  Apostle  aflirms  herein.  (1)  That  the  Scrip- 
ture mentioned  was  fulfilled.  It  was  so  in  that  justification  by 
works  which  he  ascribes  to  Abraham.  But  how  this  Scrip- 
ture was  herein  fulfilled,  either  as  to  the  time  wherein  it  was 
spoken,  or  as  to  the  thing  itself,  any  otherwise  but  as  that, 
which  is  therein  asserted,  was  evidenced  and  declared,  no  man 
can  explain;  what  the  Scripture  affirmed  so  long  before  of 
Abraham  was  then  evidenced  to  be  most  true,  by  the  works 
which  his  faith  produced,  and  so  that  Scripture  was  accom- 
plished. For  otherwise  supposing  the  distinctions  made  be- 
tween faith  and  works  by  himself,  and  the  opposition  that  he 
puts  between  them,  adding  thereto  the  sense  given  of  this 
place  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  with  the  direct  import  of  the 
words,  and  nothing  can  be  more  contradictory  to  his  design; 
(namely,  if  he  intended  to  prove  our  justification  before  God 
by  works)  than  the  quotation  of  this  testimony.  Wherefore 
this  Scripture  neither  was  nor  can  be  otherwise  fulfilled  by 
Abraham's  justification  by  works,  but  only  that  by  and  upon 
them  he  was  manifested  so  to  be.  (2)  He  adds  that  hereon 
he  was  called  the  friend  of  God.  So  he  is  Isa.  xli.  8,  as  also 
2  Chron.  xx.  7.  This  is  of  the  same  import  with  his  being 
justified  by  works:  for  he  was  not  thus  called  merely  as  a  jus- 
tified person,  but  as  one  who  had  received  singular  privileges 
from  God,  and  answered  them  by  a  holy  walking  before  him. 
Wherefore  his  being  called  the  "  friend  of  God"  was  God's 
approbation  of  his  faith  and  obedience,  which  is  the  justifica- 
tion by  works  that  the  Apostle  asserts. 

Hereon  he  makes  a  double  conclusion  (for  the  instance  of 
Rahab  being  of  the  same  nature  and  spoken  to  before,  I  shall 
not  insist  again  upon  it,)  (1)  As  to  his  present  argument,  verse 
24.  (2)  As  to  the  whole  of  his  design,  verse  26.  The  first  is, 
that  "by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only." 


450  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    APOSTLE    JAMES,    ETC. 

"Ye  see  then;"  you  whom  I  design  to  convince  of  the  vanity 
of  that  imagination,  that  you  are  justified  by  a  dead  faith,  a 
breathless  carcass  of  faith,  a  mere  assent  to  the  truth  of  the 
gospel  and  profession  of  it,  consistent  with  all  manner  of  im- 
piety, and  wholly  destitute  of  good  fruits,  you  may  see  what 
faith  it  is  that  is  required  to  justification  and  salvation.  For 
Abraham  was  declared  to  be  righteous,  to  be  justified  on  that 
faith  which  wrought  by  works,  and  not  at  all  by  such  a  faith 
as  you  pretend  to.  A  man  is  "justified  by  works"  as  Abra- 
ham was,  when  he  had  offered  up  his  son  to  God.  That  is, 
what  he  really  was  by  faith  long  before,  as  the  Scripture  testi- 
fies, was  then  and  thereby  evidenced  and  declared.  And  there- 
fore 'let  no  man  suppose  that  by  the  faith  which  he  boasts 
of,  any  one  is  or  can  be  justified,  seeing  that  whereon  Abra- 
ham was  declared  to  be  so,  was  that  which  evidenced  itself  by 
its  fruits.  (2)  He  lays  down  that  great  conclusion  which  he 
had  evinced  by  his  whole  disputation,  and  which  at  first  he 
designed  to  confirm,  verse  26.  "  For  as  the  body  without  the 
spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  without  works  is  dead  also."  A  breath- 
less carcass  and  an  unworking  faith  are  alike,  as  to  all  the 
ends  of  natural  or  spiritual  life.  This  was  that  which  the 
Apostle  designed  from  the  beginning  to  convince  vain  and  bar- 
ren professors  of,  which  accordingly  he  has  given  sufficient 
reason  and  testimony  for. 


THE  END. 


1 

Date  Due 

l^--- 

^Clb'b. 

N^ 

OE  ^-  '50 

«m  0  o  'CJjj 

s 

iei^ 

f) 

.p^^ 


